Holien

MrSpkr it is now the 3rd July and the game has not yet started? I do hope you two can sort it out. We have another game complete. 4 games left to complete including MrSpkr. H

Good map looks like fun and I wonder what Big Al has install for me? Be gentle. H

AAR Please. H

Hi Gents, I know some of you are on holiday but for those still playing can you let me know how far you have progressed. If I remember correctly we have just hit the halfway mark of this four week period. H

Hi MrSpkr, Great news on the job front. Thanks to the guys who have sent me files to watch. Some real different games happening and this scenario is proving to be quite interesting. I only played this vs the AI so I have no idea how I would have managed against some of you guys. Should be some serious movement on the leader board if this continues. H

Right gents here is the progress tracker for the third game. German Player----> Russian Player-----> Turn Brent Pollock----> jdsu---------------> Complete Walpurgis--------> Abbott-------------> Complete Tracks-----------> Andrew Kulin-------> 10 Sgt Gold---------> MrSpkr-------------> ?? a1steaks---------> Neutral Party------> 08 Preserved Killick-> Malakovski---------> 15 Akula2------------> Booz---------------> Complete Keep me upto date with your progress and any saved files of joy you want to share I am always glad to see them. H [ July 03, 2005, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]

Some links with facts on Tigers, I am sure you know these anyway. As this was posted in another thread. http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/fulcrum_main.pl?database=ft_u2&searchid=109558764828166&keyfieldvalue=ADA415948&filename=%2Ffulcrum%2Fdata%2FTR_fulltext%2Fdoc%2FADA415948.pdf This link notes the problem with the transmission and says that vehicles were lost in combat due to the weakness. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm I guess your Opel is not having a good time of it? H P.s. Diesel I think Stugs are a good investment based on your exhaustive tests.

Hi Sergei, Yeah D6 mean that you have a limted range to work with. Abstraction at its best. It makes you realise how much better it is to have it all done on the computer. Another "fact" I read about Tigers that it took on average ten hours of maintenance to get 1 hour of combat from it. Now I could not see how this compared to other tanks. I just presume that is a high ratio? As for point two if indeed I gave it much thought rather than relying on the brains here I would guess that accounts for a lot of Tigers in Russia? I also seem to note that Tigers were used as mine clearance vehicles as the Germans did not invent something like the fail tank. Seems odd the Germans missed that trick? H

Sergei, Thanks for that on Bogging so in actual practice in CM Tiger stand less of a chance to Bog? (I have forgotten that from the threads.) I saw some stats showing that around 600 Tigers were destroyed by their own crews. Would that indicate that Tigers broke down in combat and this should be modelled? I understand what you are saying about Tigers making the battlefield should be shown as fit and that is kinda my view. I am just trying to see if there is any evidence out there that backs up Tigers breaking down during actual combat. And if so was that a greater chance than other tanks. (Enough to deserve a seperate model of breakdowns?) H P.s. I agree about comic book realism and this can be levelled at FOW. However if they are modelling something that CM is not, do they know something CM does not?

Hi DieselTaylor, I just had a quick look at that bogging thread and yes bogging does cover breakdowns. So that makes me think should Tigers and other unreliable tanks have a greater chance of bogging (breaking down) than other tanks. If I remember the tests done at the time showed that all tanks had equal chances of breaking down and it was something more prone for bad terrain? I could be wrong on this? H

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