tabpub

That would work also. Kinda like golf. Establish the par(average)and then a set point for being so far over. That would work also and probably be simpler. Along that vein, then grade the AAR's like school A=4 B=3 etc. then a good AAR with a bad result could balance things out a bit. Watch out though, you guys could be reading novels over there for a month....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Look at it this way, Jon. Suppose a scenario is way out of balance and you get wiped out 93-7. Chances are, those who also have to play this scenario from the same side as you will also do poorly. Your 7 points might actually get you a high "final" score for that scenario when it's compared to the other poor guys who had to play that scenario from that side. Now look at the reverse. Your opponent in your section gets 93 points to your 7 points. When you compare that 93 with all the other players who played that scenario from that side his 93 score may be very average. You could actually get more points for a scenario than your opponent even though you lost the game! This would be a somewhat extremem situation, but it is possible if a scenario is way out of balance. Treeburst155<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But then look at a less extreme situation: Say that in a certain scenario the average score for the 28 games for one side is ..um 56 say. Without being precise, let us say that 27 of the scores fall in the range 50-60 and 1 score was 85. In the abovementioned system of scoring, the player with an 85 would score 11 pts and the next highest(say it was 60) would score 10. Is that necessarily equitable? The one player that was able to "shine" above the rest would not reap the full benefits of this accomplishment.And the last place person would be shut out because he was a 50. Think this over. Take that average score for a side in a specific scenario. Compare each players score to that average. If you are above, you get that many positive points;below, and you get that many negative points. At the end, add each players "comparative" scores together to get a grand total. Now this system, if used, could come back to bite me in the ass, as I might be the poor sod that is "below average" all the time, but it really does reward someone who can "make the impossible, possible". I now retire back to lurker-dom. Thank you for your time.

[And BTW, the wrong identifaction of vehicels is realistic, but IMO it should be better - or just different - modeled. I would prefer to have some kind of generic marker then to see a Tiger? It irritates more then it informates. Then I noticed that vehicels are first identified completly false (my favorite a Tiger? instead of PzIV), and then it's identified exactly as PzIVJ, for example. Well, I have some knowledge about tanks, and I know : this is a PzIV, this is a Tiger, this is a Panther. But I surely don't know, is it a PantherA, G or late G. So I guess a general identification as Panther would be more realistic.[/QB]

Yes, I got the challenge, Juha. Response is sitting in your box as I type. Tell Treeburst when you accept. I believe that I can fit 2 more of the group 3 players into the schedule, so the first 2 of you to write, can win the prize of playing me.

Greetings: As a "lurker" (this makes my 2nd Post I believe) I was mildly shocked to see my name in "lights" per se. I have responded to my Group 3 opponents and look forward to the beginning of hostilities. The tension is unbearable. This bodes to be an adventure that will be quite memorable.

Am at Turn 5/6 of the Winnepeg Rifles. Setup and play so far have been good, but I think my opponent may be pushing too hard. Will tell the outcome later.