dieseltaylor

The A4 cost is £20 which is about right given that posting is included. However views from 25,000ft do not strike me as being the most helpful shots for scenario makers.

The flatter curve definitely seems to be closer to the NABLA tenets - and I say this as my score drifts lower .... and lower. The high risk/reward factor is well addressed and it is all very encouraging. The concept of -10% + 10% I am not feeling very comfortable with at first sight. Without pre-knowledge you treat all players as potentially good when you play them. Though it is not easy to reflect it in published scores how often do you find that an opponent has inadvertantly delayed you, and reduced your total score by doing many militarily illogical things. Scenarios of course amplify this effect as you know the forces are likely unbalanced - and not necessarily the way you think : 0. A level of refinement too far possibly?

Sounds much more like I imagined it should work when I first read the guiding principles in the Nabla guide. Encouraging stuff. Whether this negates the purity of splitting the sections into sides I think not though Nabla would still be active in rating throughout the games The work involved in sides and battle balance would still seem to reduced and visibly fairer.

If nobody else asks can you send it to me! Idle curiosity on my part no tantrums etc : )

If only I had known it was 4% for each!!! : ) Lets see 20% on to .007 .......... curses so close. I suppose that is because I should be deducting 4% from my losses and adding to my wins ??????. Hey this maths could be more fun than the Nabla : )

I never troll! If you were Axis it was very handy and historically accurate. That you suffered more than most ..... being a lucky general , as Napoleon said - is better than being a good general. Anyway whatever, it was fun : )

I think the Push to Maleme battle actually was one of the few battles that allowed a reasonable amount of troops AND tactical options and that was why it could go either way. As such I would consider it as close to perfect as I have come across. As the Axis I actually stripped out a platoon for an ambush and for the sake of perhaps one more turn I could have got many more points. Conversely it could have gone horribly wrong if my opponent had taken a more risky untraditional attacking posture. Either way we both had options to take - and unusually for the defence - enough room and troops to think outside the box. [being as VIB's are cheap the plane was realistic and probably!!! not a game breaker]

I have saved many entire games from my side of the map : ). If you use PBEMHelper it allows you to skip from film to film in seconds simply by pressing F7. A great help in saving time loading each film individually. You will need broadband I suspect as files are probably .2-.3 MB each. http://www.nic.fi/~fuerte/pbem.htm : )

The scorecard : )

If I may revert to my postings re: sections staying togther ...... First an aside on nomenclature - If you view sections as part platoons/squads they are togther to fight the enemy anyway not each other : ) The huge advantages to be gained from having sections fighting identical battles on the same side: 1. Scenarios can be as unbiased as all hell and it does not matter. 2. It will simplify the tournament organisation massively as the battles will not need to be play tested abnormally thoroughly. The setting of battle schedules will be done section by section so that will be easy. 3. The scheme is transparently fair and easily understood Whether it is played that sections retain the Axis or Allied throughout or switch each round does not make a huge difference to section winners - though it is a little less transparent than staying the same faction throughout. There are significant other advantages available Section winners get kudos for winning and into the final round. [Alternatively you could simply take the 12 highest of each nationality .....regardless of whether they were a section winner] Runners up provide the opposition for the finalists who now play two/three games as the opposite nationality/faction. Out of this you get the two best players having played five games as Axis/Allied and two/three as the other side. You have had the benefit of a Plate competition for the runners-up - which means they will be playing for keeps against the section winners. For those who want an absolute winner I suggest a final battle with Rumanians : ) OR best AArs, OR best result from a final game played by them both against the second highest player in the opposing group. Three phases with no dangers that unbalanced battles will screw the eventual out come of the best players. And awards on the way for players other than section winners. My explanation is longer than the concept : )which I believe is very simple to understand and self-evidently fair. Any anomalies in the scoring system will be irrelevant as everyone up until the final will be competing on the same terms.

I last knocked out bunkers about two weeks ago with a Stuart spending over two minutes shooting through the back door. An squad/platoon approaching the side of a similar bunker knocked it out in one turn. Whether being a 75mm ATG bunker makes a huge difference I do not know : )

"Any tank, even the lightest ...." It leads me to wonder about armoured cars and half-tracks .......... I imagine the latter are a bit iffy at closer ranges but otherwise more potential bunker killers.

"Grumblings of War"!!!!!!! OOOOOooo Kanonier! Good customer feedback trashed! : ) In my varied careers getting decent feedback has always been a problem. That people care enough to write is a positive even if the remarks on the face of it are complaints. From reading the thread would you feel that anyone would not leap at the chance to play again? Absolutely not - and I suspect most people would even pay to play in the tourney [a modest amount for sure : )] The killer in feedback is where people write and says things like " It was fun" "Nice scenarios" etc which provide no clue to possible improvements and may be purely a mark of the senders politeness rather than real feelings. For noobies like me to RoW, and someone who rarely plays scenarios it was an education and great fun. That some scenarios had some quirks and the scoring system also does not stop me from considering it the best thing since sliced bread and I am honoured to have been allowed to play in it. I am fully aware of the tons of man hours put into the scenario designing and choosing, the hours put in by administering it etc. Everyone associated with it on that side should proudly add it to their by-line. And as for reviewing things ............ I come from a chess background and you may know how obsessive they are in going back and re-examining games and all : )

So the interesting thing is what did Step6 do to assign a Nabla score to the scenario. Is htis the area where the asymetric curves where meant to level out to reduce outlier values? If anyone knew for sure I suppose they would tell us. If this is the step where the jiggery-pokery took place this would explain ![wot do I know] why there stated aim for steady play outgunning a freak result was meant to cut in. ... Oh Well plenty of time before RoW6 : )

Cogust "It is IMO much more fair to play in sections as then all your competitors will be facing the same players and that will level the playing field within the section." There seems to be an implicit assumption that the scenarios will balance out and that in each game both sides will have the opportunity to score equally well. As it transpired effectively all the games in RoW were primarily attack/defense. If you hold that attackers have more choices available to them to win big then the offense would be an advantage. The better the winning players score the lower the losing players score so in the worst possible case the winner scores 36 points and the loser 0 so in that section it could be game over. The potential for winning was not available to some of the players in the section - and there are only 5 opportunities to score. I also see that duplicate bridge is played over a minimum of 24 hands so I suspect luck/good play are less/more likely to be effective. Bridge scoring could work effectively provided the sections are playing the same side in each battle as the performances are directly comparable. In theory the section could perform 36, 35, 33,25,19, 6 and it would be an exciting contest to win the section.The recipricocity on playing within a section with unequal battle chances could leave it as 36,35,33,0,1,3. Section ruined for some players.

I tend to agree with you that the outliers do seem to be over well rewarded. Though the Maleme example shows the flaw between sides maximum scores for outliers which accentuated the difference. I think the other point besides luck,noobies, is that in effect knowing a high risk high reward strategy IS the ONLY way to be clear of the pack means some people will attempt much riskier tactics than normal. If they work all well and good but if in the nature of things they go wrong they go drastically wrong. Between the two players this may not be a problem but when you consider this higher than normal winners score will need to be beaten by the other players in the section. This effect I suspect is strongest in players who believe they have a chance of winning overall and those who hold game theory dear to their hearts!! I quite like the bridge idea. But it does assume I think that the section idea has to change again. Fine. : ). The 2001 threads probably covered this also but it is nice and simple. How common equal points would be at the end of tourney I know not but suspect it could be quite high ... For those who want to reward the exceptional results it may be difficult to swallow so perhaps the deciding factor for ties can be the percentage of total possible scores that they obtained overall. Outstanding players reap the rewards : )

Nice to see people taking an interest : ) The thinking behind Nabla goes back to 2001 - a search on CMBB will reveal threads. The underlying philosophy is here: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/hurri/nabla-system/ There were probably several hundered posts over several threads and I have to admit to hesitating to look at them to see if, or why, your suggestion was mooted or rejected! Your suggestion seems to work provided the sections, as I have suggested before, are of one nationality. Also the fact that I could be topscore by 51 to another 20 on 50 and 15 on 49 would seem to present some problems against the player who scores 80% and is 30 points clear of the pack. Obviously extreme examples but ...... : )

GAJ "WN will get an unbelievably high score with any system, unless it's one that has a clause like "If your initials are WN divide by 10". That actually is not correct as in the Maleme scenario the maximum scored for one side was .72 being damm near 100% victory whereas WN got 2.74. As I posted before if you got the highest Axis/Allied score in each game the results could be 6.3 or 12.10. A player could have maxed out at 6.3 or if his mix - had been 4 Axis and the one Allied game with a lower top Nabla the score would have been 6.25. If you reverse the sides played at Maleme of the top players the differential between the revised top two changes from 4.78 to .74 which is a hell of a difference. One you can overcome the other is impossible. The Nabla sucked because like was not being compared to like and in one Group it was decisive as to who went through. : ) Reform for RoWVI

I think you will find sites like www.tucows.com, and www.zdnet.com extremely highly respected. I see that 3777 people downloaded Irfanview from zdnet last week and 2.6 million copies in total so far from just them. And Tucows ....... "Introduction to Tucows The original software download site, Tucows.com, earned its name early on for being the first to provide software on a "freeware" or "shareware" basis. We currently host more than 40,000 software titles (all tested, rated and reviewed by our own editorial staff of software experts) through our international network of more than 1,000 partner sites. [more] If you only use Irfanview for the capture it is still excellent ..............

I see ! So I have to give all the answers!!!!! : ) So ... get the 12 section leaders , play three battles, against the second best player in each section matched in reverse order after each round. Here again as they will all be playing the same role the playing field is even. And coming second in Section is worth fighting for as there will be a chance for a title - Best Loser RoWVI : ). Seriously though I think that it does provide effectively a worthy Plate competition and keeps the simplicity of operation, and evenness of the games all in one fell swoop. I thnk yew : )

JonS "I sort of agree with that ... except that both players are in a pool of the same size. The Allied player was able to grab a bigger chunk of that pool because he really stood out, where as the German scores were flatter overall (no outliers). So if a German player had found a way to really stand out from the rest of the (German) crowd, he too could have scored much higher." You mentioned the possibility that scenarios might also give a variance due to attack/defence possibilities and I agree with that observation. So whilst I appreciate your idea I still think the section system flawed if people in it do not fight the same side in the battle. Certainly the concept of narrowing the extremes is valid as it can really screw things where a player either gets lucky through playing a rabbit in a potentially high scoring game [unlikely in RoW!], or more likely blind luck possibilities - a la Wet, or Maleme. Or most importantly as we are all aware that to score well under Nabla you are required to score better than average the daring strategy that is a gamble and goes badly wrong. P.S can you send me your spreadsheet! Malakovski "In summary, I think the only change needed in the nabla system is a final step in scoring which looks at each players total potential score to see if anyone suffered an overall disadvange to random scenario side assignment." I have concerns regarding the para: 1.I am unclear as to whether you making this remark with mixed or unmixed sections! : ) 2.Most of the scenarios are attack/ defence and that the defender has less control over the course of the battle. 3.With comparatively small scenarios luck can can have a greatly enhanced effect so I think the extremes need reigning in. Good suggestions have been made. 4.I like the positive and non-reciprocal scoring suggested by JonS - I need to think about it a bit more. I am beginning to feel I should re-read the entire Nabla pre-cursor threads!!! : (

I thought yesterday that I should have edited to to clarify the point of Axis /Allies tourney. All sections can play either sides - provided they are all that nationality for that Battle. So Section One is Axis battle each odd numbered battle and Allies on even numbered battles. The fact that they have all played the same side and battle in each round means nobody is disadvantaged comparative to the other players in the section. Given 12 sections the pattern is repeated six times. You could therefore have genuine multinational playing section winners : )It is also transparently simple how it operates. Arguably you could run it as a single round simply with the top player on each "side" being given winner status - in Group A or B. A title justly earned over 5 battles against 36 other players - though some might feel that best Axis/Allied player RoW6 might be more easily understood. And in the interests of fair play section winners could only play the opposite side the next time they play. : ) If a final elimination was truly desired the section winners could play off in a similar fashion with the scores carried forward or not ...

Well I thought about it - then I thought what happens if I die in the meantime!!!

I understand, I think, what you are saying. I do not disagree other than to say you still show the Axis player as being restricted in total possible points earned. So you could have the biggest Axis winner in a section with the two highest Allied winners and he would be 4 points in arrears! If they are in the same section this is not equitable - the nationalities must be by section for Nabla to really work properly.

I think I have fundamentally cracked the problem in the other thread!! And I still think this is the greatest tourney ever run whatever the scoring. And some really challenging scenarios to groan over!!! Dawg don't you dare bail.!!!!