WineCape
-
Posts
1,919 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by WineCape
-
-
Moi for one....there's a lot of old time CM players in the testers who skipped on CMSF but who have loved CMBN.
-
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.There's a log of pages in this thead. Has it become a "sign up" thread? If it has ... I'm in.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 worriesThe video AARs are a mix of great sound effects and "hey, not that old .WAV?".It'll be interesting to see what gets released!
-
We're not supposed to give a full easter egg basket yet.So the game has two sorts of bocage. First I heard of that. I must have words with Other Means as he never mentioned it at the preview. OTHER MEANS!....... -
Indeed, not ALL w(h)ine is bad.Ahh, but not ALL whine is bad. -
The list of things that CM simulates and abstract, compared to other tactical wargames, is astounding.The list of things that CM doesn't simulate or abstracts 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?...Playing unbalanced battles, or even better, battles, you simply don't know, how strong the enemy is, forces you to a much more realistical spreading of the forces. Then you have to hold back mobile reserves, because the enemy could come around from somewhere with big and nasty surprises. -
Seems South Africa is the only coloured-in country in Africa?
-
Wasn't GayLord an later incarnation of ... LEWIS?Oh God I remember that train wreck. I think that was while I was "away" (post SF release) but I dropped by just to see what was up, and walked right into the midst of The Gaylord Affair.I followed it briefly until the shame became too much, then quietly slunk back out, not to reappear for some time.
-
From Dr. Jarmo Hurri's paper [NABLA's scoring system for Combat Mission]
Rewarding victories of different sizesConsider the normalized deviations of two different players from three dif-
ferent scenarios: player I has results {1.5, 0, 0} , while player II has results
{0.5, 0.5, 0.5} . Which one of these players did better in the tournament?
While we acknowledge that obtaining a big victory over your enemy can be
really difficult if your enemy is serious, there are two reasons why we think
that player II did better than player I.
-----> • There are three factors which can contribute to a good result in a
scenario: good skills relative to your opponent, good luck, and an
opponent which didn’t really try [attitude problem]. We want to measure the overall
CM skills of the player. It is the thing that stays most stable over
different scenarios, while luck and the attitude of the opponent may
vary. Especially in tournaments, an opponent who has decided not
to try seriously any more may be the real cause behind a single very
good result. A set of good results in a number of scenarios is difficult
to explain in terms of luck or moody opponents.
----->• Different scenarios tend to test different skills. The results of player II
suggest that his range of overall CM skills is wider than the range of
skills of player I.
Because of this, the Nabla scoring system emphasizes uniformly strong game-
play over single large victories.
2.4.2 Penalizing losses of different sizes
But what about the negative side of the scoring curve? How big is the punishment
for losing? Until this point in this manual, the different scoring schemes we have
seen have all described zero sum games.
That is, if one player has increased his score by an amount, the other player’s
score has decreased by the same amount. If the negative side of the scoring
curve would be as in Figure 2.6A (compare this to Figure 2.5A), this would
be the case. But this need not be so.
The fairly fast decreasing slope of the scoring curve on the positive side
(Figure 2.5) implements the idea of rewarding uniformly strong gameplay.
As was noted above (see page 11), there are two motivations for this.
First, Two of the three reasons for obtaining a very good score – your opponent’s
attitude problem and luck – are not related to your skills and are not under
your control, and in tournaments the attitude problem is a serious one.
Second, we want to reward players who master a wide variety of CM skills.
These arguments turn around if you think about a very bad score.
First, there are also three reasons for obtaining a bad score: your opponents
skills are better, you are unlucky, or you have an attitude problem. Now two
of these three factors are under your control, and if you have an attitude
problem, you should rightly be punished.
Second, if you lose royally in a
game because you do not have the skills it shows that there are some CM
skills which you did not master. (But you still shouldn’t be punished harder
for a single large loss than for many small ones, because, in our opinion,
having deficiencies in many skills is worse than a deficiency in a single skill.)
Because of these arguments the loser is penalized somewhat more heavily
than in a zero sum game setting, although not too heavily so that a single loss
will not destroy his chances in the tournament completely. The difference
between the Nabla scoring curve on the negative side and a symmetric, zero
sum game curve is illustrated in Figure 2.6B. As can be seen, the slope of
the negative curve stays constant below some point, whereas the slope of a
symmetric, zero sum game curve would continue to decrease. Because of this
change, in case of a large victory the loser will be penalized slightly more
than the winner will be rewarded. Remember that here a “large” victory is
defined in terms of normalized deviation from median.
2.4.3 Incentive to play
Consider a hypothetical symmetric scoring curve, shown in Figure 2.7A. As
was discussed above, the slope of the scoring curve describes the size of
the increased final score in case the player wins another CM point. The
slope of the hypothetical symmetric scoring curve of Figure 2.7A, shown
in Figure 2.7B, indicates that if one player is already winning by a large
margin, then the incentive of both players to try to score an extra CM point
is greatly reduced.
While it is true that in unbalanced games it can be very difficult to know in
the middle of a game what your position is on the curve, sometimes
it is obvious that one player has succeeded and the other player has lost.
Therefore, with a scoring curve like that shown in Figure 2.7A, situations
would come up where both players would no longer be greatly interested in
what is happening on the battlefield.
While the original motivation behind the asymmetric curve was related to
the reasons for big victories and losses, it also has the nice side effect of
alleviating this incentive problem. This can be seen in Figure 2.7D, which
shows the slope of the asymmetric curve of Figure 2.7C. The slope on the
negative side of the curve never falls below 0.4. This provides a direct
incentive for the losing player to try to score more CM points, because it
allows him to improve his score to a reasonable degree.
Furthermore, it also provides an indirect incentive for the winning
player: while his own score increases quite slowly if he scores more CM
points, it does lower the possibility of his opponent in winning the tournament,
thereby increasing his own chances to win.
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................*raises 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.I am convinced that you guys thoroughly over-engineer this scoring mechanism.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.Out of curiosity how many scenarios do you see being used in the first round? -
South Africans get to the point quickly and are renowned for not mincing words. Parallels to Yorkshire's inhabitants can be drawn.Interesting way of looking at the effectiveness of air power, by reviewing the reports of friendly fire.http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000026.html
The commanding officer of 1st South African Divisions comment is a classic.
-
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..... it looks like im going to have to use the air missions function in Normandy 44 to have air power in my operation at all without causing a mutiny
-
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 ;-)Hey Winecape,Can I get in the tourney? I was top dog at Tournament House in 2000-2001. I won a tourney there in 2001. I have never dropped from a tournament and right decent AARs. Also played CMBB and CMAK. Thanks for your consideration.
Swamp
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?
unit composition,
Has anyone seen a flamethrower yet?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I saw a flame and thrower recently in testing CMBN: the flames were on the Stummel and threw the occupants off in a hurry