milhaus

try this for artillery patterns http://www.hulldown.org/kilroy/Misc/mPisiTables.htm [ September 16, 2003, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: milhaus ]

Mine to, for no apparent reason. Sounds like they may be using cheap CD's

Since playing CMBB custom scenarios i have come to the conclusion that in the battles i have fought the minor victory flags are irrelevant to the briefings and reduce both sides flexibility of troop deployment.An example of this can be found in "One Final Stab" from the Stalingrad pack.The briefing denotes the factory complex at the back of the map as the objective,consequently there is a major flag on it...fine. However there are two minor flags placed forward of the factory on either flank.Consequently it creates the temptation as the attacker to split ones forces to "bag" 200 "easy points" without impinging on the main objective,this also forces the attacker to leave a unit to hold the flag, consequently weakening the main attack.Also the defender has to dissipate the defensive line,thus imposing on both sides point punishments for alternative deployments. It seems to me that most battles depending on the size need only one or two major victory flags on the most important terrain features.Thus giving more flexibility in formations and a more accurate game score.

While reading the post "How often do guns get hit by direct fire" i noticed an interesting postscript to Poor Old Spikes message. It read - "A bonus of my being the CMBB ladder leader is that people think twice before arguing tactics with me." This implies that the reason he is on top of the ladder is down to his superior tactical skill. Well i thought about this and came to the conclusion , after analysing Poor Old Spikes CMBB ladder statistics , that he , consciously or not , has effectively exploited a loophole in the scoring system. He plays twice as many games , and at a faster rate than the next player to him and therefore only has to win 50% of his games to amass an unassailable score(which he has done) , also when you look at his games in progress he is actually accelerating . So as long as he keeps up this game frequency he can have an average win % and still be top for ever . He must spend every minute of the day playing , so unless the rest of the ladder members give up their jobs and divorce their partners he will always be leader . Also he seems to play the same size and type of game so he will eventually develop a formula that he can replecate ad nauseum . I think a truer reflection of tactical skill is a combination of win % , quality of opponent,year,equipment and the battle type diversity that historical/fictional battles give.i.e. custom maps and forced unit selection test the players flexibility and adaptability as opposed to the blandness of random maps and the luxury of choosing your forces . I would argue that a player with a 60% win rate on blind historical games played over a variety of time periods has more proven overall tactical skill than a player with the same win % that has played the same number of QB 1500 1941 - 42 battles (As in the case of Poor Old Spike) . Therefore I conclude that being on the top of the ladder does not give one the right to brag about one's tactical prowess unless certain criteria are met , and even then its still a bit sad . milhaus :mad: [ March 24, 2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: milhaus ]