Holien

Hi Sergei, In no way or shape would I compare FOW to CM for realism. However, it is interesting that in their rules system they penalise Tigers and Crusaders for being unreliable. This is expressed as a 1 in 6 chance of breaking down and being out of the game if the tank tries a double move. (i.e. Drive fast). Now it is a fact that Tigers did suffer mechanical problems. From what I have read. How far should a game go to represent those problems? Is FOW being more realistic by trying to model that problem? BTW FOW models bogging by having a tank have a 1 in 6 chance of bogging while going over rough ground. CM models bogging, so why is this different than Tigers breaking down during combat? Did Tigers break down during combat? I post this just to see if anyone has any views and as an interesting debate on how far do games designers go to represent reality? H

Hi Gents, I have just started playing Flames of War WWII 15mm Miniature Wargame rules. In the rules they model Tigers breaking down if they move at the double. This represents the fact that Tigers were unreliable. In CM terms should this be modelled? I realise all games are abstractions of real life and wonder why something like this is not modelled in CM, (as far as I am aware.) H

Hi Gents, I have been busy this weekend and will be sending out the usual e-mail asking where you have reached on Tuesday night. If people want to let me know before then, that would be good. We have the fastest finish of a game in the tourney so far with Brent and Jdsu already finished. Anyone else nearly done? H

Nestor I now understand what you are saying. Yep Scientific Bollocks. KR needs a prize for being so close every time but not quite getting there. Nice to see he has not lost his touch. H

What do you mean by the number of points in a scenario? Are you effectively saying that in easier scenarios the points should be less or more? How do you judge if a scenario has been easy or hard? I am leaning towards this being bollocks but out of zany ideas good stuff can flow.

TB posted too quick it would appear that you need to try and assess which 90% is better? However, this could all be down to them both having easy games and Fred being stuck with tough games each time? You will never isolate that out. So just by trying to assess the best 90% you will always at times get it wrong?

If you did points from 1 - 3 for each game it would score as follows: - Fred:.....2...1.5...1.5 = 5 Ralph:...3...1...1.5 = 5.5 Harry:...1...1.5...3 = 5.5 This is based on tied players spliting the points between them. I.e. Tied second place you get 2 + 1 / 2 = 1.5pts. If you look at the scores Ralph and Harry are in fact equal to one another. So how do you seperate them? H

Ohh and on a sub note whatever system you use for a tourney will not be ideal. There will always be winners and losers. Just good to see the ideas being kicked around to see if anything new can be created. Failing that just run it as is as you know the pros and cons better. H

This is why I am experimenting with the Luga tourney to see how that works out by trying to match players of the same skill. Should be interesting to see how WN does in it. He got a reserve spot and is already towards the top of the list. He is now being matched against the top Allied player and this should give him more of a challenge. That or I will have one unhappy Allied player. H

Sliding would work very simple. Just an Excel sheet with two lines of players. Each tab on the sheet would be for one scenario and a simple move one position down gives the player some different to play. That would be far easier than the current grouping of players. AAR storage would be easier as well. No trying to see what group a player was ijn, just what side did you play. H

One way of getting a final result between the two top players (or 5 or more) is for them to agree on a scenario to replay and then play that both ways. If they could not agree on a scenario then give them the most balanced based upon the scores during the main tourney. As for running the tourney that should be no harder than it is at the moment. Just a thought. H

Hi Gents, This is good stuff and something I am very interested in. The TCP IP Tourney "Luga Breakthrough" is being run on exactly the basis as described by some here. I.e. All players stick with one side (Allied or German) all the way through the tourney. The one change I have made is after each game to assess who should be playing who based on points scored so far. Obviously round one is random but round two is based on the scores of the players in round one (scenario one). This only works if you have tight timescales and ensure that all players are finished before the next round is issued. What it should mean is that players are evenly matched and should ensure a close run tourney. In the discussions here it would not be unreasonable to rate the top Allied player and the top German player for ROW. If one wanted a final match between them get the last game to be played from each side at the same time. This ruins FOW but is about the fairest way to get a true showdown for the two top players. The designers / playtesters would have to choose something that could work well played this way. Just some food for thought. H

Just when I thought I could breath a sigh of relief.. </font>

Right here are the final scores (i.e. round 0ne plus round two). Allied Player--> Points 1.jdsu-----------> 12 2.Abbott---------> 11 3.Andrew Kulin---> 9 4.MrSpkr---------> 8 5.Neutral Party--> 8 6.Malakovski-----> 4 7.Booz-----------> 4 Axis Player----> Points 1.Brent Pollock--> 12 2.Walpurgis------> 10 3.Tracks---------> 10 4.Sgt Gold-------> 9 5.a1steaks-------> 6 6.Preserved Killick--> 5 7.Akula2----------> 4 So see who you will play next by matching the first number with that of the opposing player. The Scenario files for round three are on the way out now. H

Hi, There have been several questions while I slept and rather than try and rush the answers I will carefully review the issues tonight and re-issue the scores if appropriate. I will also issue the next scenario tonight. H

Hi, More on this scenario on Tuesday night. It is really tough and I guess perhaps too tough. I have just e-mailed the results and my calcs on the points so far. After I have had sleep I shall send the scenario file and we shall see if the Soviets have more fun with this one. H

Right mornin gents, Just off to work and will send out the next game either tonight (if I get a chance) or certainly by the end of Tuesday night. That scenario was very tough on the Soviets and you have to be on top of the game to get a draw in that one. As always you are being compared only with generals of the same side so it is a matter of how badly you did compared to the others of that side, or how well you did as the case might be. The 12.5mm HMG is very useful if used well and knowing when to open up with the AT guns is another trick if you set your TRP's well (Or luck is with you.) Anyway I hope it was not too painful and the next one will be a welcome change. (Perhaps?) H

I do hope he is OK and can be up and running soon. There is one week left to the deadline and after that I issue the next game and the players not yet completed are dropped out of the tourney. You tell me when and if I should try and get a reserve player? (There are a couple in the wings.) Cheers H

2 Games left playing as far as I am aware. Any chance of issuing the next game this weekend? H

Hussah! H

Thanks for sending the results in for that Abbott. Just got Roys mini AAR and thanks for that too. That scenario is very tough and your game produced one of the best results so far. Just three games to go and you can all have the third scenario. H [ June 07, 2005, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Holien ]

Revised figures Ted ............vs jdsu..........FINISHED!!! Brent Pollock.....vs MrSpkr........Turn 6 Sgt Gold..........vs Andrew Kulin..Turn 17 Preserved Killick.vs Abbott........FINISHED!!! Walpurgis.........vs Malakovski....FINISHED!!! Akula2............vs Neutral Party.Turn FINISHED!! a1steaks..........vs Booz..........Turn FINISHED!! H [ June 09, 2005, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]

Mornin Gents, Two more players finished and just had a read of a great AAR from Neutral Party. I will send out the chase e-mail later tonight. Now I do expect to see some movement from all of you. H P.s. We now have three games finished. [ June 05, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]

Somebody has to bring up the rear guard . . . Steve </font>

Good mornin gents, The weekend is here and I will be chasing you at the end of it for an update. Good hunting and lets see if the tail end charlies have surged forward. H P.s. We have had our first gents finish and results posted. Cheers to Akula2 and Neutral Party [ June 04, 2005, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]