Sivodsi

"Obviously you get to play both sides... I'm sure I read somewhere that the side you play is totally random, so there is a chance that someone has to play axis or allies all five games. Not sure whether this actually happened though.

Okay here are the top Nabla scores for each side per scenario, with the median scores in brackets: Wet Triangle Axis (72): 1 Allies (27): 1.94 P to M Axis (78): 0.72 Allies (22): 2.74 St Ed Axis (52): 1.41 Allies (48): 1.81 Highlander hell Axis (51): 1.86 [oh! that's me!] Allies (49): 2.01 Bridge Axis (45): 1.31 Allies (54): 2.59 Here you can see that the biggest difference is in Push to Maleme where the top scoring allies score is 3.8 times the top axis score. The question that Nabla forces us to to ask is "was the best allied performance in this scenario really 3.8 times better than the best axis performance?" But of course, the point is that some people had the chance to play the sides with the potential to gain this many points, whereas others did not. Whether this lead to anybody winning the group instead of another person is something I'd rather not look into.

"Even if those playing the disadvantaged side have the potential to gain more Nabla points, whether or not a player is in that situation is decided at random" Damn! as soon as you say these things you realise its not as straight as it seems. When I said this, what I mean is that a strong player will do better than expected whether he/she is playing with the disadvantaged side or not, but if the strong player is with the disadvantaged side they stand to gain more. How many more points you could gain is an important question [edited to add: see figures in my next post] I guess the problem comes when they are two strong players in a group, who could equally go through. In this case, under the current system, the one playing the weaker of the unbalanced sides would have the advantage of a greater potential to gain points. [edited embarrassing grammatical mistake] [ June 12, 2005, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: Sivodsi ]

The main issue here is: does the Nabla system achieve what it is intended to do? At the moment it is intended to choose the one strongest player in a group of 5 people. We can say that it probably does this, since it gives a bonus to those who do better than we might expect them to do, and the better they do the bigger the bonus. Even if those playing the disadvantaged side have the potential to gain more Nabla points, whether or not a player is in that situation is decided at random. [Edited to add: after I did the figures below I realize I am talking bollocks here. My post below shows that is a large difference between the top scorers on boths sides in an unbalanced scenario. The difference between doing well on the unfavored side vs the favored side could well be decisive] The wider issue (and one for the next tournament) is; does the Nabla system choose the best players in the tournament? Here we have a tantalizing glimpse at comparability between the groups because they are all worked out in relation to everybody's scores, so it seems like we ought to be able to. But to answer this question we need somebody with a deeper understanding of the statistical methods involved (Er, not me). I suspect that somebody with a knowledge of 'Rasch analysis' would be able to help us with a system that allows us to identify the strongest players overall without having to just peel off the best single person in each group. Anybody know a professor of statistics ? [ June 12, 2005, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Sivodsi ]

yeah, big thanks to Kingfish, Acepilot and all who must have put in a huge number of hours organizing all this. I've really enjoyed it. Question: the winners in each group go through to the finals to play for the wine, right? Not those with the top scores overall? I would have thought that since the scores are worked out in relation to how everybody scored in the scenario, so too the winners should be decided based on the top scores overall, not just who happens to score more in each group...? I'm quite happy with how everything is worked out, just curious what the rationale is. Thanks edited to add: ah! I see Dawg's post is asking the same question. Should have read that first... [ June 10, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Sivodsi ]

It's going to be Normandy for two reasons: - that Tom Hanks movie - CMBO was the first release in the series so that's what they'll come back to. It's a umm... uuuurrr, [business speak]... 'no-brainer'.

From blitzkrieg to genocide, gentlemanly lectures to abusive diatribes, arrogance, ignorance and wisdom in spades; the full gamut of human experience in a single thread. Thanks everyone for the show. I have a much clearer idea now than when I first posted about what the 'blitzkreig' was all about. If there's nothing but abuse left we can either have it shut down or leave it to creep down the page and into the archives.

but even 'hull down' is not fully 'hull down'. If you are in this position you can still get destroyed by a penetration in the upper hull.

We've got the the thread on the CMAK column calling for a cold war version of the upcoming CMX2, and now calls for a WW2 version of this game... What next? You know, now that I think of it, that game "drop team", that would make a real cool WW 1 sim.

"Blitzkrieg was then, no brilliantly thought out military development. It was a fortunate combination of armor and tactics that relied on highly skilled and motivated soldiers to achieve its impressive results. The German High Command failed to either support or develop this revolution in warfare. Their only contribution to its success being the limited ability to tolerate the rogue behavior of its practitioners as long as it proved successful." http://www.onwar.com/articles/f9812.htm What it says in this article makes a lot of sense. I'd always wondered how to repeat the effect of blitzkreig on a CM scale without losing all my tanks early on. According to this article it seems when the blitz worked it was more by good fortune than design. When it didn't work, the German high command held the officers accountable and fired them. Also, the author here points the finger at the German High command for failing to 'support or develop' the blitz. Later on in the war, directive 41 restricted the advance of tanks to the pace of infantry. However, other commanders such as Patton achieved rapid advances. So what did they do differently to the German style blitz? Did they also go at the pace of infantry? And if they went faster, how did they deal with the problems of getting cutoff from their rear and pockets of encircled enemy attacking from behind? Looking forward to your comments.

Hi there, I'd love a copy of these sent out to me. Thanks

Hi Kingfish, A quick question about how you grade the AARs into half or full credits. Do you give them a full grade depending on how useful it is to yourself, or is it more on effort put into it? I can easily imagine enthusiastically banging away on the keyboard and spending hours agonizing over what to say, only to find that what I am saying is of little use to you. It'd be pretty dissappointing to come away with a half credit in this case. Cheers

"spend a few hours playing it out TCP" Unless you have an opponent who only has a dial up connection. The only solution then is to agree on a time for a concentrated e-mail swapping time. Unfortunately my last opponent doesn't respond to my requests, so I don't know when he is free. As it happens we are within the last 10 moves, so we should get it finished in time. Frustrating about the lack of communication though.

"Game uses XML (Extensible Markup Language) files for game objects...Add new vehicles, change their physics, change turrets, swap one gun for another or put a brand new gun on a existing unit and more. All of this can be achieved by editing the associated the XML files. You can also create entirely new models and textures that weren't originally included. You can even just drop in your own 3D Studio models if you want!" wow! So how is this going to be limited? When I'm in a multiplayer game, am I suddenly going to be confronted by supertanks that some programming junkie dreamed up and chucked in? Also, no mention of we-go system, so no chance of PBEM capability? - and does this game remind anybody else Total Annihilation? That was a great game...

Thanks, I'll check them out. I thought that I had downloaded the latest drivers after reinstalling Xp, but I'll have a look.

Thanks for the words of wisdom! Blue Streak, great tip for dark screens. I'm using it for the bridge and mental asylum scenarios. Hoolaman: it doesn't seem to matter what the other applications are doing or not, if I minimize and then maximize the screen is black. Schrullenhaft: My latitude C610 runs XP and has the ATI radeon mobility (the one that sucks because it doesn't show fog). I know it is possible to remaximize and get CM running again because I could do it before I reformatted the hard drive. The question is what changes can be made to make it work on again on after minimising & then maximising? Is there a way to hack the ATI Radeon? cheers David

Hi there, Hope I can get some help on this problem. I have a dell latitude P3 850MHz with 384 RAM, and the problem comes if I minimize CM or hottab to another application (eg an internet browser). When I try to get back into CM I have just a black screen. The only way I can get the game going again is by using the task manager to force CM to quit and start all over again. How can I get CM going again after minimizing or hottabbing to anther application? Looking forward to your answer David

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Hi there, Two newcomers to PBEM Helper are trying to get a game going in trusted mode. I sent the first 'trusted mode' (being sure to wait until view + plot stage before doing so), but when my opponent opened the file he got an error message saying that some of these files were old files. What did I do wrong?

A patch is a patch. IF there is another patch it will be a file which you will download from the servers at battlefront and install as is. Its pretty unlikely that there will be another patch so don't worry too much about it.

What's wrong with "teddy bears' picnic"?

Hey Kingfish, Whats with the ROW V link on your sig? It connects to www.roberebunting.net/rumble/index.php but a "nothing could be found" message comes up when I click on it. Cheers David

It was pretty interesting. In particular I thought that 'dessert storm' sounded tasty ;-]

Dog meat is not part of Japanese cuisine.

Yes, the Char B2 Aggressive Rocket Symmetrie Emmitter mk 2. After the early experimental rocket propulsion system was criticized for lacking maneuverability, this one had a revolutionary variable direction thruster added (commonly mistaken as a canon). However, in typical French fashion it blew off spectaculary, tragically destroying most of the factory that produced it. As an interesting aside to this story, one of the orphaned children was none other than Michel Wibault, who reinvented the idea to power aircraft, and was hired by Hooker who was instrumental in developing the engine for Hawker Aircraft, and what would eventually become the Harrier. Sadly Wibault died before he could witness his engine in a flying airplane.