Peter Svensson

Has anyone figured out how victory location control is really determined? I thought that if both sides have units within 80 meters of the VL when the game ends, the VL is neutral, i.e. shows a grey question-mark flag. During a recent PBEM, I discovered that this is not the case. A VL was awarded to my opponent, even though I had a squad within the 80 m radius. At first I thought it might have gone to him because he had more men there, but I've done some tests, and numerical superiority doesn't seem to be the factor. In fact, you can download a Quick Battle www.speakeasy.org/~petersve/VL_Test_by_Peter_Svensson.cmb (passwords are blank for hotseat play) where the German is awarded the VL even though there are more Americans by the VL, and they are closer too. In fact, to offset the single German squad, it takes an entire American platoon, plus a tank destroyer. And that doesn't make the VL American, just grey. Is this a bug, or am I missing something? [ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson to include passwords ] [ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Hmmm... what about ties? I'll have to think about that. It does happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure how NABLA handles this, but I suggest that if two people are tied for, for example, second place, they split the points for second and third place. If second place is worth 10 points and third 9, then each of the players would receive 9.5 points. The player with the next lower score would receive the points for fourth place, i.e. 8 points. If three people were tied for second, they could split 10+9+8 points three ways, and so on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: The only problem I see with this is that then there is effectively only one, large, group, rather than the three sections we have now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, I can back up Treeburst on this. We each play seven scenarios, but in each of them we only play one side. Eight people times seven scenarios, divided by two (because each scenario takes two players) makes 8*7/2 = 28 played games per section. That's 4 games per scenario. And we'd be playing as one big group in one sense only - when comparing percentage scores. Each section still sends one player to the finals, so we are still competing only within the section.

The proposed scoring system does sound very good, and I'd love to see it implemented. The one drawback may be that we will have to wait till all games are completed in all three sections till we find out what our effective score, i.e. ranking, is. I don't think that's much of a problem, especially if the Standings table is supplemented with a page that reports on every played scenario, its score, and the side taken by each player. I wouldn't mind maintaining such a page, if Mike has too much to do.

Treeburst, now that Kingfish and I have finished a scenario, is it OK if he and I exchange passwords, so we can look at each other's movies? I just thought it would be fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: I ordered StuffIt Deluxe, figuring on getting it quickly (mit manual) because the firm that makes it is in California, where I live. Sadly, it's back ordered. Jarmo, please send me the Mac zip shareware or whatever it is so I can get going. I have two games in hangfire because of PC opponents who can't read my files. Either that or Kingfish (who has a PC, AOL and who routinely reads my files) can fight me when his present game wraps. I have to fight him at some point anyway. Regards, John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, You can download compression utilities at www.download.com. And if you are looking for a Section II fight, I'm up.

That's it. I'm no longer the King of the Castle, or the Lord of the Manor. I lost 44-56 against Kingfish in a fierce fight around Kommerscheidt, a town on the Kall Trail. I think that's the first completed game of the tournament. Treeburst and Winecape now have my AAR.

Hmm.. The Internet Movie Database lists it, but doesn't seem to know more about it than the name of the director. And the only reviewer has obviously mixed it up with the German movie. Sadly, no tape or DVD distribution in U.S. IMDB: Stalingrad

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha: I agree with Peter Svensson in that many cases some sense of enemy positions and emplacement types would be known before battle. The only time this might not be are during meeting engagements, breakthroughs, or recon in force. Also, city fighting might be added as well. But, along an established front with entrenchments, enemy positions would be known, including things like MG nests, bunkers, etc. That was the whole point of tactical intelligence. In non-operation games, this can be simulated by both limiting setup areas, then labeling those areas as "German postion," "MG nest," or "Bunker." [ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent idea.

I'd like to go a bit farther and say that the attacker should have some knowledge of the location of the defender's forces. In most cases, a real-life attacker will have had enemy positions under observation for a while before attacking, and will have probed them with night patrols etc. Certainly, some bunkers etc. will have been discovered. The lack of pre-battle recon is what leads me and others to employ the "gamey" tactic of using light AFVs to probe the enemy while the engagement is actually going on. Some defend this practice as an appropriate and historical way to use light AFVs. It's true that vehicles like this were designed and used for reconnaissance, but I believe they were employed on the divisional and regimental level for operational reconnaissance, not for driving up to enemy positions to draw AT fire. I wonder how real-life scout car crews would feel about constantly getting orders like "Drive over that hill. When they bust your car, run back and tell us where their guns are, OK?" Of course, if the attacker was more knowledgable about the defenders, it would make the already too easy attack even easier.

I'm under the smoke plume here in Brooklyn. Ash is coming down like snow, and office papers are whirling round. Fighter jets are circling about. There's a smell of smoke or gunpowder in the air. Very scary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: Very bice. Did you notice any difference in time after the shell hits that the round emits smoke? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I looked at that, and it seems all smoke shells are identical in this respect. They all start putting out smoke 30 seconds after landing, or the at the end of the turn, whichever comes first. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Notice that the 150 rocket has an interesting characteristic I was not concious of, because I have never bought rockets. It fires 50 rounds very quickly and puts down a very long duration smokescreen of 2.5 minutes. That could prove most useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I guess they weren't Nebelwerfers for nothing. While the dispersal is huge, the smoke clouds are also big, and should provide meaningful cover even with just one FO. Two simultaneous 150 rocket smoke missions on the same spot would be a cheap and fast way to create a huge, dense smokescreen. I'm a little surprised the larger rockets don't have a smoke capability. Weren't they Nebelwerfers too? Maybe someone can enlighten us.

I was interested enough to look at smoke duration and add the data to my artillery table. It turns out there's some difference in duration between the calibers. Weather does not seem to affect smoke duration, however. http://www.speakeasy.org/~petersve/arty.htm http://www.speakeasy.org/~petersve/arty.xls [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ] [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ] [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ]

Note addition of smoke duration data added Aug. 24.

This is interesting. I never realized smoke shells have different durations. I think I'll run some tests and add the durations to my artillery table, if the differences are significant.artillery table

Just modified the files to include the 14-in naval gun, and improved readability in the html file.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GenSplatton: Both links are the same. Neither points to a spreadsheet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for pointing out. I fixed above.

Here's a table of the points cost, blast value, reported time to target and rate of fire for all the different kinds of artillery in the game. I've been missing this data when buying arty in QBs. http://www.speakeasy.org/~petersve/arty.htm also as Excel spreadsheet: http://www.speakeasy.org/~petersve/arty.xls Reposted the tables Aug. 24. to also include estimated smoke duration, which is the average time a smoke shell puts out smoke, in minutes and seconds. In practice, this is the upper time limit for a useful smoke screen after a fire mission is ended. I'm not sure how useful the smoke data is, but at least the table now shows which types of artillery can put out smoke and which can't. Enjoy! (moderately) [ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ] [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ] [ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ]

When I try to host TCP/IP, the buttons and info on the lower part of the screen, including experience level, morale status, the "Go" button etc., disappear. Anyone found a fix for this? I don't get this when joining an IP game, nor do I get it in other situations. I run an Athlon 700 with 256 MBs and a Radeon All-in-Wonder with the 4.13.7075 driver.