Holien

This would explain the issue you have Sodball and I have learnt something new. H P.s. I see we posted at same time. Just seen your response, thxs for the info. [ April 30, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Holien ]

Looking at those figures the total 1st shots (missed and hit) for each tank type do not match? Why? Surely if you are going to get an accurate comparison the total number of shots should match? H

It is worth testing as I would not expect the 88 to be less accurate at close range than the 76mm. If it is proven, and not just a fluke, then it would be interesting to understand why it was the case. H

Hmmmm How to destroy a debate by posting reams of un related information. Tom could you trim that information down to something meaningful. I think we all know where to find that info. Could I suggest you use the edit button? Thanks!!! H [ April 30, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]

Sodball It is worth discussing and please don't take the knocks as personal attacks. I too feel that the Nashorn and AT guns are not as effective in CMBO as they perhaps should be. This is just based on feelings and not any real basis of evidence. Hence I usually just keep quiet and watch the debates and see what occurs. So for that reason alone continue testing. I might add a couple of human issues that might cloud our view of the battles in Europe. Stuarts and Greyhounds can be effective killers in the game by doing mad rushes around the rear of the German heavy tanks. This happens often in CM as the players realise this is the way to defeat the German player. IRL if you were in charge of a Stuart and were given the order to do some of the things we make our units do in this game we would respond in no un certain manner. The game has created a universe of rules and calculations which attempt in some small way to model RL. It can not model RL very well as we create situations in the game on a regular basis which would not really happen. Your comment the Tiger is supposed to be a feared opponent on the Western Front - allied tankers were scared of facing them is very true from what I have read. This would weigh in the minds of the Tank Cmdrs and they would not put themselves in situations where the model of CM is often being tested. Hence we would have more RL evidence of what would have happened at these ranges. As it is the model is being used to resolve things which not often happen and we can not expect it to always work well. As for AT guns it does annoy me that I have a stationary hidden asset which is tracking a visable target and I get one maybe two shots off before HE hell comes my way. From GB AAR it looks like CMBB might model this type of action better? H

My my... A porter in the states... I am now trying to find the beer in the UK... A must try... Thxs H

Wreck, If they get Sam Adams in Baltimore then that will do nicely. I popped around their brewery at Boston and had quite a few beers... Just keeping those stero types rolling. I shall ensure that London does not have any fog when you come over. As for dealing with a tie I just don't think we need to worry about that. But then I could be wrong... H

Hmmm well I did not know that Redecker beat you. And if that is not a bit of mis-information then that shines a new light on it. Anyway you know what I think as does Redecker. I could have thrown my game with Warren but I think he will agree I am fighting hard to try and win at least one point. In doing so I am opening the door for you, but as I mentioned a long time ago you won the wine in the main tourney as the points clearly show. Just buy me a beer when I get over there next or you ever make it to the UK. I mean a real beer as well, none of that nancy Lager you lot drink. H

Hi, I think we are close and I know who will be getting the wine... I have about 10 turns left with Warren. He posted that he will not be available til Sunday so I guess our game will be complete during the course of the next week. The end game is in play and I am hoping to restore some honour to my score compared to a couple of games already posted. I would guess Wreck is in the same spot as no post has been made about his last few turns. H

Just finishing off Warren will be ready to play when ever you decide what you want to do. In other words I will play before CMBB is released if there is time to squeeze another in. However, are we missing some scenarios? H

Move It Or Lose It. This can be replayed from both sides and is one of the most fun, well balanced games there are. IMO H

Hmmmm, Me thinks you have discovered a bug, that or you have found a way to upgrade the games engine. H P.s. It just proves my point that you are a lucky lucky lucky sod....

Redwolf if that was an answer to blind play it might have missed the mark... The idea of Un-Balanced idea is good and I would enjoy that. It is the Triple Blind I am not sure what the benefits are of that? H

Hi, On the issue of triple blind can I ask what exactly are the benefits people see from this? H

I am teasing... Fair enough I perhaps have teased a bit too far and on that note I will say no more. H

Hi TB, I vote "1", random as the fairest route IMO. MrSpkr, in regards to this bitter statement. "I also note with interest that the strongest support for the random still comes from those most likelyl to benefit from it -- the strongest players that would rather have a cakewalk into the playoffs rather than having the same chance to play against people of equivalent skill and having a harder row to hoe". Hmmm of course you "know" that for "fact" and that is obviously why some people are voting for random. (Perhaps you are in training to be a judge and jury and can truly discern what people’s motives are?) I guess the fact that more people have voted for random, and those that have, span a range of "perceived" playing abilities means nothing. I certainly know that in the group I played, there was no cakewalk for anyone. If I were being cynical I would look at the statement above and reverse the logic in that you want an easy ride. But that would be absurd so please disregard that statement. TB I would be against playing blind as it adds nothing to my experience and would prevent TCP IP play for those that wanted to play that way. As for the two groups I would prefer that we do not make any arbitrary decisions as those are fraught with danger of getting it wrong. However like everyone else I am just happy to be playing and happy to offer my opinion when asked, so whatever is chosen is fine as long as I get to play. H

If you want an update on our final game I can say I am awaiting a turn from Warren. I guess he is pulling double shifts again and it will be a few days before we continue? The game is on turn 25 (ish). Warren has pulled off some good ambushes and I have taken a lot of infantry losses. Two tanks have bogged and the others are still in action, well they were the last time I looked. Warren is still in with a chance but I feel I might have the slight edge. The next few turns will see how it falls. I have one last big pocket of resistence (that I am aware of) to clear and it will depend on how well they stand their ground. Warren of course might have a different take on the game. Not one of my better games, which sums up the performance on the other games as well. H

Hmmm more votes for random. As for triple blind I have some questions. What if I want to play TCP / IP to finish a game off or speed it along? What if I enjoy a bit of banter, especially if I get a decent chap like CDIC or JK? H

It was not a flag rush by me as my men had been sat there for most of the time. Unlike Mr drive my 1/2 tracks up the hill on the last turn..... (How they survied all the arty hitting was beyond me...) I admit I ran them (my men) over the brow to try and clear your guys running up the hill. That was of course to no avail.... As the flags remained disputed and I think that is what dear old Wreck boy is alluding too? The game was won or lost in the tank battle before this, as it appears to have been in Wrecks game. H [ April 23, 2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Holien ]

While typing the above I see someone else typed Random. Anyone want to keep a tally? H P.s. TB your suggestion is a interesting one if a tad impractical to pull off.

Hmmm, Dear MrSpkr I am starting to lose the will to live. We have a lawyer who has his teeth into a debate he wants to win. Fair enough.... I understand the arguments. I believe that any groupings will be a subjective process and hence error prone. This could then bring into play your arguments about drop outs etc.. "I don't, for example, think it is fair for a tournament to have, say, Fionn* play against, say, Mace*. It would be a walkover, and probably would not be 'fun' for either player." What if you got it wrong and placed someone who was faced with a situation described above? Your approach could bring about this situation. Also all of this is all based on the premise that "good" players will walk over "poor" players. In the group I played in I don't think that could be described as the case? This is a false premise. I am also at the moment getting hammered by my 8 year old godson. is he to be classed as an "Uber" player? As for "Social Engineering" thanks for quoting a dictionary at me. http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553558 "Utopian social engineering, associated with Plato, Hegel, Marx, and their totalitarian heirs, is committed to the wholesale transformation of society through central planning according to a comprehensive ideal plan and unlimited by any constraints from competing social institutions (e.g. the church)." I still maintain you are trying to engineer a situation by subjective methods. You are trying to transform the competition by coming up with your perceived "ideal plan". So far I have seen several people throw their caps into the random camp and several people into the grouping by perceived ability. Lets just vote on it. TB and Winecape can choose the route they want to take based upon the votes received. H P.s. I presume that if we are to be grouped then I and Wreck will be placed in the same group as you. Obviously your debating skills translate to your playing skills and you are an "Uber" player, or am I being subjective?

"I am not a number...." Well this is an interesting debate. Who says anyone is a great player? Am I and others to be type cast based upon past preformance? I know in some of my games in the current tourney I was very lucky and I bet some of my opponents would agree with that. So I am to be placed with the other perceived better players? I am also to be judged against people in other tourneys I have never played? Hmmm not fair IMO, and a bit too subjective to me. Open to serious debate. These better players are to be kept away from players that are perceived to be not so good? Can we really assess the strengths of players based upon the small pools we swim in? Will I have less fun playing stronger opponents or weaker opponents? Or will I have more fun? Based upon the fact that we can only stab widly at who is strong and who is not and that might skew the final result. I still maintain a random draw is the fairest route. Social Engineering is something that people try and I dislike as it requires "someone" making judgement on other people with limited information. Throw the dice to winds and see where they land in a random draw. H

I object to the word "Uber" as it has negative meanings. It is a label. I do not object to grouping by perceived skill. However, as we are into grouping (not groping) then it is still arbitary as we have no sure fire ranking scheme. Anyway, whatever, I am just happy to play. You can label me in private as that way I don't read it... H

Hi TB, I understand where you are coming from and I am happy to play that way. As has been mentioned I will have won by playing brand new scenarios that have not been played before. However, as you have asked for opinons then here is my view. I would prefer random seeding. By seeding players against their perceived peers it is open to errors of judgement. By trying to seed evenly it is again open to errors of judgement. Print out the names, cut them up on a bit of paper and draw randomly. No one can complain (yeah I am an idealist) and it is all down to luck. In reality there will be a spread of players and if not c'est la vie. H P.s. I am truly gutted that CDIC has pulled out to design the games and if KF does the same I will cry for weeks.. P.P.S I am not fond of the term "Uber Player" and it seems as if it can be used a derogatory term at times. I am saddened to have gained a label by association with the group I have been placed in. I am a player who gets lucky at times and never see myself as an "Uber Player". (TB I mean no offence, and I am sorry for getting on the soap box but I have a personal crusade against labeling people and I am a tad touchy on such issues.) P.P.P.S Tom Way to go.... [ April 22, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Holien ]

Just to offer another view. I have found in recent games that the Allied tanks are less effective than the German tanks. Well that was the way it seemed when my 10 year old godson wiped my three TD's out for no return. A painful experience, it happens, deal with it. I deal with it by screaming and shouting and then get calmed down by my beloved. H