Col Deadmarsh

Okay, this is where I stand now... After hearing what Treeburst had to say, I feel better about everything now knowing that someday (probably when CM3 hits the shelves) a PBEMer with the same skill as a TCPer will have the same points and be ranked accordingly. At least it evens itself out in the end. Until that happens, I would like to see a toggle button that would show the top 20 in win percentage. This would give everyone a good idea right now of each player's skill level. Of course, there should be a minimum number of games played to be ranked with a percentage, otherwise everyone who's 3-0 will be at the top of the list. Maybe a good minimum number would be around 20-30 games played. What do you think?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yobobo@TH: Colonel, I still don't believe in the separate leagues. Why should a good player with 100 wins be ranked the same as a player with 10 wins? Even if both have a 70% win record?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My example was a simple one so everyone would understand. Sure, someone with only 10 wins should not have the same score as the person who has 100. But let's take the TCPer with 200 wins and 100 losses vs. the PBEMer with 50 wins and 25 losses. Now, the PBEMer has played 75 games. He is no longer a newbie at this and his ranking should logically be somewhat the same as the TCPer, but it isn't. Do you think it's fair for the PBEMer with a good record to be ranked under the TCPer with only an average record? Is there something we can do here? I read what Treeburst had to say and I thought that was really interesting that it would take the PBEMer a year if not more to catch up to the TCPer in points even though they have the same win percentage. Could you explain this system we are using so we understand how things are calculated. Tell us how many points we get for each win and how many are subtracted for each loss and what happens when there is a draw. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also some PBM players finish a game in a week, some finish in 3 months, so how would that work :/ Should we have even more ladders, like 3 month PBMers, 2 Month PBMers etc..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like I said, having another ladder is not the perfect solution but it would be better than grouping everyone together. I would not mind being put in a ladder with the PBEMer who plays 19 games at a time. Maybe another ladder isn't the solution. Maybe the base number needs to be adjusted to move the PBEMers up to a number where they don't have to play for a year to show their true ranking. Off-hand, I would say that 50 games should give both TCPers and PBEMers a "true ranking." What are your thoughts on this? If there are any mathmaticians around here that can validate what Treeburst said, come foward and do so. Maybe you can explain how things can be made fair for all parties. After all, not all of us joined the ladder to find people to play with. Some of us want to reach the top some day but with the way things are now, that would apparently take years to do so. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ...At the moment I am playing a reinforced battalion-sized QB. It takes me an hour minimum to figure out what orders I want to give my troops and then give them. It then takes me anywhere up to half an hour to watch the movie and digest what has gone on. I realize that I am probably an unusually deliberate player, but I cannot believe that a battle of this size can be played enjoyably within the time constraints you propose by a majority of players. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is precisely the reason I don't play TCP/IP. It's too much like playing real time and frankly, you lose some nice things about the game when you play that style. For one, you can't plot your moves and then re-think them over in your mind because there's no time to do that. I look at CM as a WWII 21st Century chess game. So, I revel in the fact that I get to take my time when moving, making sure I have my strategy right before sending out the turn. I also love to spend 10-20 minutes watching the movie. You can't do that on TCP/IP either. I've learned to love these aspects of the game that you can't get with real-time, instead of comparing the two to try to find out which one's better.

Those of you who have played a lot of games at TH have realized that the more you play, the more points you rack up. Therefore, the player who has 100 wins and 20 losses will have more points than the player with 10 wins and 2 losses. Now, I realize that those of you who play a lot should be recognized for being veteran CM players and the best of the lot because you've earned it by putting in a lot of time to the game. What I have a problem with is the people who are just as good at the game but only play PBEM games. They should be recognized too but using the current system of having only 1 ladder for all of us prevents this from happening. Would having 2 ladders, one for TCP/IP and one for PBEM be an end-all solution? No. But it would greatly even things out. There are TCP/IP players who probably report 3-4 games a day as opposed to the PBEM player who reports 3-4 a month. These numbers are way out of balance and end up significantly skewing the player ratings on the ladder. Since the TH ladder is based on the Swiss chess system, I'm assuming it would be extrememly hard to "adjust" the system to make it fair even if we have a top mathmatician in this community. The goal in this case would be to reward win percentages more so than they are now instead of rewarding the person who plays the most games. Of course like I said before, those people who invest so much of their time into this game should be rewarded for doing so and maybe this isn't the right solution to the problem. Therefore, it seems the only alternative to fixing this problem, (and it IS a problem) is to have a seperate ladder for each style of play. As a PBEM'er who averages 4 games at a time, I don't mind being ranked against someone who has 15 PBEM games going on at once. This is a lot better than trying to compete with someone who plays 4-5 TCP/IP games a day. The end result here is that the best of both styles of play will be rewarded by having their name at the top. And if you play both, then you simply report which style of game you played to the appropriate ladder. We all want to be recognized for our talents at this game and this proposal would give that to us.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're proposing Kip. You want an orders phase simliar to what we have now during a TCP/IP game and yet you also want to be able to give orders during the game too? I assume whatever orders given during the game are for "minor changes" to the orders you gave at the pauses, correct? But how would this work? If you pause the game, then your opponent gets to move to, right? And vice versa. Well, where would that end? Each player might be pausing every 15 seconds or so meaning pauses every 7 seconds. I just don't see how this would work. A game can never truly be "real-time" if you have to pause the game to give orders. I'm afraid that what we have here is the best it will get on this kind of command level. There are just too many units to control, even in a 800 pt. game to make this work in real-time.

I first tried OneClick and it worked fine except that it couldn't handle zips (at least, not to my knowledge.) Then someone told me to try PBEM helper but when I tried that out, it froze on me twice in a row so I went back to OneClick. If the author of OneClick would include an option to unzip files automatically along with a wordwrap feature for the text, I'd be a happy man.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Ah, my apologies. I thought perhaps you had an inkling as to what you were talking about, my mistake. If you want to debate something, perhaps you should do so having done a tiny bit of research first? I'll just put your comments in the "seriously misinformed" pile and we can leave it at that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're a lot better at being a smart ass than you are at explaining things, Dorosh. I don't need to be an expert at miniature war gaming to know that things like moving and shooting aren't nearly as abstracted in CM as they are in miniature war gaming. But for your information, I did play a lot of D & D in my youth and since we used those little metal figures to represent men and monsters, that would qualify as my inkling. Hey, the guy who started this post told me to compare...so I did. That's my opinion. Sorry if you took it so personally. I guess you're one of those touchy types... Back to miniatures, I'd seriously like to know how one moves and shoots in a game like that. And yes, I agree that the comraderie is better than talking through a computer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: As opposed to the stock graphics in CM where a two story building becomes a flat square? I am not a miniatures gamer, but I certainly wouldn't make fun of anyone who was. CM relies just as heavily on imagination, and in some ways moreso, than miniatures gaming. At least in miniatures, you can put tac signs on your tanks and know which is which at a glance - you put 311 on the side of a Tiger skin, suddenly all your Tigers are in the same platoon... [ 05-27-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, you can paint different numbers on your tanks, but in miniatures there isn't a 1:1 ratio either. You still have to pretend 3 or 4 guys are an entire platoon. I think there is a lot more imagination going on in miniatures than in CM. I remember playing board games like that when I was younger and it's all very abstracted. Movement, firing, LOS, blast radius, everything is abstracted. How are these things even determined? Are there tables for everything? If so, how is (say, a move number) determined if you are playing on a map without any hexes or squares like they were? How do you know how far to move your men? How do you know your LOS on an enemy tank? I fail to see how something like this could be fun in the age of computers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker: I'd like to see where all the tanks and panzers end up with a drunk crew on the battlefield...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want to play with drunk tank crews, check out CC2. They can never drive in a straight line.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Now play nice! Miniature gaming has many benefits that even CM does not. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean like having to pretend that your tanks and men are actually moving? Or maybe the fact that you have to spend hours and hours building your map when the computer could do it for you in seconds. I suppose it's also much more fun to knock down a building with your hand pretending your Tiger tank just smashed it to death. Yes, I'm thinking of making the switch right now. Hold on while I get my leisure suit and I'll join you back in the 70's.

I feel sorry for the people in the pics. Apparently, they have not heard about CM.

I assume the other one was lost when the server was hit and I have yet to see anyone else start up another so I'm taking the initiative. Same rules apply. Just give out your ideas. No debating anyone else's. Uneven and random deploy zones to prevent flag rushes at beginning of games. I'd like to see random and bigger zones of control when deploying. This means I could be one square away from a vl as opposed to now where I am an equidistant amount of squares away from the vl just as my opponent is. This will cut down severely on each player racing his men to the flags in the center of the map on turn 1. I think it will add a lot of realism, as soldiers in real life don't know the exact location of the enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert Olesen: [QB]And the bell-shaped curve would be nice. It may be simpler to just implement a triangular density - linear on both sides with the same slope.QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Beavis: Hey Butthead, what's he talking about? Butthead: Uh...I dunno. Some mathmatics crap or something...

Another converter from Close Combat. I played CC2 myself and I rarely play it anymore. That 2-D aspect is hard to go back to. Once in awhile I will return for the real time play and the chance to use one of those Hetzerflammen's to wreak havoc on my enemy. Still trying to get used to the idea that in the real world, (CM), flame tanks were not this deadly. Repeat after me now...suppression...suppression Have fun with the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tiger killed by Greyhound <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't tell you how many times I told him to look before crossing the street... Now who's gonna do all the mods?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord: Which one do you have Colonel Deadmarsh? I have four different kinds. all are nice, but I personally like Kwazy Dogs Hires version the most. Mord. [ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Mord ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think I have Kwazydog's too. It's that orangish one. I was hoping for something darker, greener maybe. Something like that black and green KT mod on HQ site or something in brown. Do you carry that in brown? Seriously though, where'd you get all these Jagdpanther mods so I can go take a looksie? I'd also like to see a Jagpanzer mod if someone's up to do a new one of that.

I'd like to see a JagdPanther mod. I've only found one so far and althought it's okay, I'd be happier with something else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Man the dudes in that 1st picture are wickedly exposed. Id say any HE round that entered that wide open shop front would hit the back wall, explode, and do some nasty damage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right. Those dummies should've consulted with Fionn before setting up in the open like that.

Had to re-install CM and I lost some stuff and now can't find it anywhere. 1) I'm looking for that ultra-cool Tiger 1 mod with the white "A" on the turrett. 2) Also, that set of vanilla treebases that shows you real well which is scattered trees, woods, pines. It's not Tremblett's I don't think and it's not DD's either. Anyone use this? I'm almost positive it's not the stock graphics...at least I hope not or I'll look stupid.

Is One Click going to be expanded upon in the near future to accomodate zip files and the like? As far as Fuerte's program, I'm sure it's very nice but I don't feel like learning how to use another one.

Great program. Just wanted to say that it would be even better with a word wrap feature on the email. I like to write long, tauting notes to my opponents and this would make things easier to read. It desperately needs one. Also, how do you deal with zipped files? Do they have to be unzipped first and put into the default directory before they can be used?

Frenchy, are you sure that you aren't talking about "Band of Brothers" which is the mini-series? Isn't that based on an Amrose book? If he's doing another war film, this will be 3 in a row. Wonder what got him so hooked on this subject all of a sudden?

Well, I checked and my team is actually a SMG team with a 100m faust. I guess with that Wasp running full speed at me, the guy holding the thing didn't have time to pull it out and use it.

I had a German infantry squad, Gerbils I think, who were in some woods shooting at some Airborne troops 200-250 meters away. Nearby was a Wasp, about 300-350 meters away and knowing this, I kept my squad On the next turn, the Wasp turned around and started towards my men. My team didn't once even target the vehicle and kept trying to shoot the 3-4 airborne guys who were already pinned by my mg. The Wasp gradually sped towards my men, got within 30 meters, and then flamed my squad, pinning them all. What I wanna know BTS is why didn't they use the faust? Aren't they expected to use it in this situation? I can see from a realistic standpoint that maybe this happens from time to time but I hope this isn't something I'll see a lot. That team is sure to be dead now unless I can get them outta there. I wouldn't feel comfortable telling them to stay there, hoping they'll use the faust when they didn't do it before. I guess what I really wanna know is, can you depend on an infantry team to use their fausts and gammon bombs and such on vehicles like this when they need to? You don't always have the luxery of keeping an AT team back there just in case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -=reef=-: Will CM 2 A.I. be any better ? Seems a shame to waste such a good game with poor A.I.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously, you've never had the pleasure of playing the Close Combat series...