ADAman

You might be a victim of Frederick Lanchester's "N-Squared" theory. This is the most famous equation in warfare mathematics (O.K., maybe Forrest's "Git thar furstest with the mostest" may beat it out). It basically says fighting strength goes up as the square of the number of units (all other things being equal). I was going to try and make some intelligent comments (a first for me) on the current and ever popular MG controversy using Lanchester's model but realized I didn't have enough understanding of it to ensure I correctly applied it. I've ordered a book containing his original manuscript and after digesting it, if I think there is something I can say that adds to CM, whether it is on MGs or what should be the cost of units, I'll post a topic. In the meantime, if you want to see what Lanchester says, you can use a search engine with his name and words like math and warfare. I've included a URL that links to one such site. Lanchester's mathmatics of warfare

Banshee wrote, "But the average, village map (even with heavy forest selected) is still far too open for a solid defense..." This seems to go against my conceptions of what one would want in the real world. I wasn't a ground grunt but in the infantry training I did have, attacking across open ground was not one of those tactics they recommended. Assuming Banshee's correct with what works in CM, this would seem an area that might be revisted by BTS some time down the road.

Too bad 1 Apr has come and gone. Could have had some fun about Derek joining the BF staff and putting his stamp on the next release. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

Also a bit on the unfriendly side... ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

I have one word, "Click" ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

You missed another of the obvious ASL advantages, the opportunity to have your board, with counters, accidently dumped, kicked, bumped, pawed, etc. Then, not only do you get to exercise your hand - eye coordination, you get to test your memory skills. Let's face it, CM just isn't in the same league. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

One thing they haven't improved on much, if at all, is making them idiot proof. I put a belt in an M-60, pulled the trigger and managed to fire one round. It turns out the belts have an "up" and "down" based on the links. If you put it in the wrong way... Maybe that's why my virtual soldiers are always looking at the enemy over their jammed MGs. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

I searched the message board to see if running a CM tournament like a duplicate bridge tournament has been discussed but didn't find anything (did I miss it? Is it common at other sites?). This would seem a good way to segregate tactical skills from the ability to choose the "best" units or any particular luck in the way the map is drawn on a QB. My questions are on the best way to score the games. This post is a bit long but I couldn't find a way to shorten it much. For those not familiar with duplicate bridge, the score is based on how a person does relative to others playing the same hand. A simple example in CM terms would be… 1. For an 8 person tournament, a moderator would generate, say, 4 separate QBs (A-D). For round 1, persons 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, and 7&8 would pair off and play game A. For round 2, 1&3, 2&4, etc. would play game B. Round 3 would pair 1&4, 2&6, etc. playing game C. Then 1&5, etc. would play D. Ideally, everyone would play everyone but I've limited this example to 4 games. 2. Scores would then be computed based on how an individual did compared with other players playing the same side of the same game. You can win if you do better with your side, win or lose, than others do. Using duplicate bridge scoring but CM nomenclature, the best German score for a game receives 3 points, a 'top', the next best score receives 2 and so on down to the worst score which receives 0, a 'bottom'. The scoring is then done for the Allies. Obviously, if a German scores a top, the corresponding Allied player against whom he played gets a bottom. If there were 16 players, the top score on each side would get 7 points, not 3. It is obvious (at least to me) that a tournament based on this approach would percolate the strongest tacticians to the top since the play balance of the scenario is no longer a factor. You can win even by losing as long as you lose by less than everyone else playing your side in that battle. This gets to the issue of this post, how to score "duplicate" CM games. Two obvious approaches are: 1. Similar to duplicate bridge - Assign points to the players based on how they did. Assume the Germans score 3 "Total" and 1 "Minor" victory in game "A". The three top Germans receive 2 points apiece (3+2+1 points split evenly) and one gets nothing while the Allied player opposite the "Minor" German victory gets 3 points and the other Allied players get 1. 2. Compare players to the average score for their side - In the above (assuming "Total" = 4 and a "Draw" = 0), 3 of the Germans would get 4-(13/4)=.75 points, one Allied would get 2.25 points (assuming I didn't bonehead the math) and I don't know the right to do for the rest. Giving negative points seems a bit harsh. In the above example, the German with the minor victory would get a 1-(13/4)=-2.25 points score. This would drop him 4.5 points behind his Allied opponent in just one game. Still, not giving negative points would mean that a player who in his 4 games got one minor victory and suffered 3 total defeats could place higher than someone who got 4 draws and that doesn't seem right. I'd like to hear if others have tried this approach and any ideas on a "fair" scoring system for it. After I've toyed with this a bit and assuming this isn't a well plowed field, I'll post a follow up with a pointer to the opponents wanted forum where I'll see about hosting a small event to try it out. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

I've got a book on the Bulge where it describes using 37mm solid shot on infantry. They managed to score a hit with predictable results (he should have worn a flak jacket - would have made the clean up easier). ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

If on a road, I try to keep on it which limits the flexibility of how to round out the corners. I'm paranoid after bogging down so often. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

Arghhh.... This isn't locked yet? ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

A most interesting thread. At some point, this may be a self solving problem. The game's still not all that old and there are still newcomers (like me). I play for fun, not the thrill (or points) of crushing someone, especially someone without much experience. At some point, there won't be all that many "new" players (CM2 won't solve it - you'll get the old players, some new ones, and after a time, you'll again have a core pool) and I think the players will split into factions: the "professionals" (those described as technicians) and the non-pros (which in no way means they aren't as skillful, just what they are looking for is different). At some point, the non-pros will avoid certain ladders or players except for the occasional foray to see if things have changed or for diversion. I saw the same thing happen in paintball when I used to play. There were "pros" who played on organized teams and went through paint balls like I go through potato chips, and there were the rest of us. It didn't take long to realize it was more fun playing guys who didn't go into a rage because they got themselves painted (not implying anyone in CM is a bad sport, just saying these paintballers had a different mindset) and even winning (seldom but it happened) didn't change that. The pros wanted to play us weekend warriors but since their games weren't as much fun, to paraphrase West Side Story, we stuck to our own kind. Enough. Just an opinion of where this will eventually lead. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

"The second spotting round has no correlation to the first round. I noticed an instance where the 1st round was 30m off target (which in arty terms is on target) and the 2nd round was 80m off target!" _____________________________________________ Not quite enough data here to tell but this may be closer to the way FOs are taught than you think. When I had my FO training (mandatory for all of us with crossed cannons on our collar, even if we did have the flying phallic symbol in the middle of them), I was taught to bracket the target, even if I thought my first round was pretty good. Then it was halve the interval until FFE. Using binoculars it was difficult to really tell how close the first round landed so the instructors said to adjust the second round far enough to ensure it bracketed the target. Your description doesn't say if the 80 yard adjustment bracketed the target or was truly random. If it did bracket it, there may be some method in the madness. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

A famous chessplayer (Tartakovr or Tarrash, I can't remember who) at the beginning of the century said something like, "Given Alekhine's positions, I can find the brilliancies as easily as him. The problem is I can't achieve these positions." In general, my FOs always ended up doing backfloats before they made it to the beach. I didn't get the chance to run them to the bluffs. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

von_M had it right. Standard deviation is a measure of central tendancy which is a high handed way of saying how spread out the data points are. Statistically, about 68% of the data points should be within +/- 1 S.D. of the mean. Using the CM data, it says about 2/3s of the players (more correctly those that responded to the poll - never know when a nitpicking statistician is out there) are between the ages of 24 and 45. ------------------ Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)