WineCape

I guess then I can scratch those potential invitees off the RoW tourney that hates playing by PBEM, as opinioned here.

Lanzfeld is a pyromaniac.

This was brought up a few betas back. Not fixed yet Steve? Or was the Demo done before this issue was corrected?

Couldn't agree more when I first laid my ears on the Beta.

Need more parameters to get a test bed. Where both AfV's moving, at what speeds each, size of AFV, experience of crew, were it head-on shots or not, how many times did it occur given amount of samples tested etc. to make any limited observations regarding first-hit occurrences. I have tested non-moving (immobile) 400m & 800m head-on first hits and Charles eventually, given the findings after many hours of testing and a specially created test scenario, tweaked certain parameters slightly to give greater variances. What you see could be an outlier or a possible issue. We will not know until a test scenario is created with certain parameters and run many times.

A feature. However, tank crews can bail and re-crew tanks, provided it's their (1) own tank; (2) it's not destroyed; (3) there is enough crew members left to operate their tank.

Aye. As per Swiss system style, used in Chess tournaments. It's usually used in big Open Championships were there a many a participant. This could be a solution, but unlike Grandmaster Chess where you have, say 40 moves in the first 2 hours, with a secondary time control after this, in PBEM, as you indicated, it will play havoc with schedules, even if you set a (rather short) 20-day limit for Scenario A to be completed by all participants. In fact, this might be the ONLY way to schedule/rank all 72 players in one go and decide who meets who in the next round; those that have scored roughly the same amount of points/wins in previous round. Tie breaking systems, as used in chess, will then decide those winners who scored the same wins/points after all scenarios played. But scheduling a time limit to Scenarios are fraught with danger. Some play fast, some play slow, some can't send a single email move for x-amount of days due to Real Life. Unless we find an acceptable scheduling/time frame solution, or a way/solution to only pair match players for the next round AMONG those that have indeed finished their previous round. The question, Nabla, is if the above Swiss based system, after looking at other possible methods, is in fact your ONLY choice to rank players effectively from #1-#72 when not all players have met all in combat. For we then don't have to invent the wheel, as Swiss play and their various tie-braking systems are very well documented.

For clarity sake, this is meant as an OPTION to the current knock-out system Nabla is programmed for, not a replacement by the way.

Timeframe of RoW VI as follows: (1) Nablah reasoning of a tournament, which is a pair <N,A> where N is a finite set of at least two elements, which we will call players, and A is a zero-one matrix, such that its diagonal entries are zeroes and for all i, j ε N, i ≠ j, aij +aji = 1. The interpretation is that each pair of players in N played each other once, and aij = 1 if, and only if, i beat j. (2) Nablah gets a bright spark, drops the "h" in his name, and produces another beautiful math equation for ranking/rating RoW in different sections. Failing that, repeat step (1); (3) He writes a new front-end for NABLA, to be used by moi, the tourney director; (4) Demo and CMBN by now released in wild. Everyone forgets NABLA and RoW for awhile; (5) Scenario designers approached with concept paper for designing 7 scenarios specifically for RoW to test players abilities w/ every CM unit capable of being clicked w/ mouse pointer; (6) Invited Scenario designers goes in evil genius lock-down mode and design diabolical battles, never seen before; the need to wear clothes while doing so not obligatory; (7) Invites and dates set and announced on forum for tourney start. Vets that showed interest to play RoW VI will get 10-14 days grace to reply to invites, following that invites send to newbies, who showed interest in playing, all via PM. (7a) (7) above not possible for Newbies without obligatory thesis titled: Why we should character assassinate your name upon drop-out; (8) Great fun and gnashing of teeth to be had for +/-150 days, depending on state of intoxication while playing; (9) Winners announced, I drink wine, send corks as prizes, winners fêted as the greatest ever to set foot on Normandy.

Such attitude. Tsk Tsk. You're right, of course.

Michael, That's three scrolls on my mouse wheel to the end of your sig line ... Charl.

Comfortably Numb & When The Tigers Broke Free by Pink Floyd.

You will be disappointed then you if win the tourney and some of its prizes could be wine. Denmark is quite iffy with wine taxes collected once the parcel of liquid arrives at your doorstep. Heh, can I take it you are off poor Steve's back? He's worked hard the last few years and he needs a serious holiday, with your pre-order monies, of course. It's all a scam, really.

I will put you in the RoW invite list only if you buy one extra CMBN copy to be used as a prize for the eventual winner. That will make us all believe you are a fanboy.

RoW Tourney's are only for fanboys. It's a sine qua non.

OK, I will remove you from the Rumblings of War VI waiting list, as there is the possibility then that you will not order CMBN.

A long quote, since you're usually quotable in toto. The "h" in your name don't fool us. Get working. OK Nablah, here's my take on the tourney format, being aware that changing the format might be not good, depending on your workload in re-programming NABLA to accommodate it: Firstly, I would love to NOT have to have a knockout round. The tournament can still be 72 players total, but you will have 3 x 24-player mini tourneys within the tournament, each tourney having 3x8-player sections, with each player battling with 7 scenarios total. Given the underlying assumptions of the current NABLA, is this possible/desirable? The idea is not so much having a single winner out of all 72 players, but having 3 Tourney winners within the overarching Tournament. This would be the only change I would like to make to Nabla scoring/scheduling, if nothing else. The issue is for Nabla to compare players accurately, that among the 9 x 8-player Sections total , you get 3 x SECTION winners WITHIN each Tourney. The best/highest section scored winner within EACH of TOURNEY I, II and III should get the prize as the overall 3 winners of the Tournament. The reason is simple: No extra play-off scenarios are needed, and more importantly, not ALL losing participants in their respective sections, after losing out on qualifying for the play-off is previous RoW's necessarily want to play these extra play-off scenarios to SCORE them more accurately for the NABLA system for those involved in the play-offs. In the past, we at RoW had no issue in "cajoling" losing section players to do so. But it is not ideal. Can this be accommodated in NABLA? Thus, instead of having a sectioned round robin + a play-off format, you have only a round robin format with 3 winners. For clarity sake: A 'Tournament' = 72 players total [RoW VI] A 'Tourney' = 24 players each within the Tournamet [named Tourney I, II, & III] A 'Section' = 8 players each, playing 7 battle scenarios [can be #'ed sequentially, or just plainly "1-3" within each Tourney] Secondly, and certainly a "less wanted feature" given the drastic change in mechanics of scoring to accommodate it, if we decide to do away with Section play altogether, is it even desirable/possible to lump all players in one single group/Tournament to play a "Round Robin" / a-la-Swiss style Chess tournaments, battling against SOME opponents only, and still declare the top 3 winners, despite these 3 not having played each in the tournament due to design? Maybe this method is just to much of a drastic change on the existing NABLA scoring/scheduling to bother about? Don't bother with scoring method if this if a pipe dream altogether. I'm not worried really on the second method, but the first proposed method would certainly be a "wish" for any tournament director, or at least to have such an extra option within the NABLA scoring/scheduling system. That is, no knock-out phase.

For those interested in the NABLA scoring system for RoW, I have re-established contact with Dr. Jarmo Hurri, creator of the NABLA, and to refresh some questions asked, herewith: Nabla's comment on this issue is as follows:

Notes taken for those posting here regarding the invite list. Note: All Vets as well as newcomers will be formally invited to participate in RoW VI when due date arrives, despite showing their (Vets/no Vets) willingness/interest to play here on this forum. We cannot assign anyone an automatic tourney slot based on their interest shown here by posting. You might be away, on holiday, sick, divorced and/or dead when due date arrives to kick-start the tournament. So in a way, nobody gets guaranteed a place until he receives an invite (detailing the tourney details and his commitment therein) and replies YES/NO in kind via his Battlefront Forum email. Posting here just makes my workload easier: who should be send first invites in their respective Vets/Newcomer groups during the Vet grace period signup, and thereafter.

Actually, the beer napkin came first with the famous doodles on them. That implies beer ... before all else.

I'll waive my 1 Zim Dollar PayPal consultancy fee if you repeat my spelled name repeatedly so in the face of dear Mr Peng in our ongoing CMBN PBEM test battle.

Yes to Marco Bergman's Silhouette mod showing (roughly) my AFV's gun penetration and armour protection 'stats' I'm using now for CMBN testing! [/end plug for Marco's mod]. PS: I'll be charging 1 Zim Dollar PayPal for consulting fees.

Mother of all that is holy Sergei, there goes my stab at an attempt to do serious "PR" work, and to soften the blow, to complete smithereens! Thanks. Over to you from here onwards. You certainly have a way with words.

All I'm saying is that neither the Demo is ready, nor CMBN, according to BFC. Heh, If the demo gets released an hour, a day, or a week+ before the CMBN game, it does fulfill your impression created. Whether the Demo is going to be a Gold Client to be released, I honestly don't know. Only the Great Men can help you out with this question.

Obviously, that is a given Dadekster88. There are always major and less major issues discovered, no matter how many testers you throw at any testing cycle. Major ones include the Demo/CMBN not even installing properly due to reported problems on machines running certain OS/AV software etc., to give but one example. Deliberate anticipation created on BFC's part, knowing that their product is 'perfect' for general release, is certainly not BFC's modus operandi. That, many here on the forum, can assure you. But as all know, only Charles and Steve can make that decision when CMBN/Demo's imperfectness is 'perfect' enough for Battlefront to release for general public consumption. In short, BFC's oft-quoted statement in these matters, "It's ready when it's ready" sounds cruel to the waiting public. But it IS the honest, short, brutal truth