GreenAsJade

Note that this list has no input into what scenarios are played other than the players themselves choosing to use it as a guide. Players can choose whichever scenario they like from wherever they can find it. This list just records the results after the games. And, as you said: balance is only one factor in picking a game to play. I would fully expect people to also research the scenario via the reviews at the depot etc. Also, the sheer number of times a scenario has been played is some indication of how good it is (another reason for putting scenarios with lots of games above those with fewer). My intention with this list was to at least give people the opportunity to get some better information about balance while choosing a scenario. In theory this could lead to less data about scenarios that initially appear imbalanced because people shy away from them, but in practice I doubt if this is a problem. The reason is that there are still so few scenarios that appear to be balanced! After you've played the few scenarios with a significant balanced result, you will then find yourself looking down the list for other less-played scenarios, and this will improve the data for those scenarios. Possibly I should require _more_ games played before displaying a result, so that if the first couple of results make a scenario appear imbalanced when really it was the players who were imbalanced then that scenario doesn't get mistaken for an imbalanced one. However, I think that by the time a scenario has been played 4 times you are starting to get some indication of the way that it goes. Cheers, GaJ.

Heh - I didn't think of that when I named it. My offer of porting to a Mac if someone provides me a Mac is still open.... Anyhow - it's " Martins Combat Mission Mod Manager" . Cheers, GaJ (Martin)

All that just so he could slip in the bit that he has actually won a game at some stage!

Do a scenario as well, so us people who don't play ops will get to use it!

McMMM V4 will provide the capability to define and load "Mod Sets". This means that </font> Scenario designers can provide a list of mods that makes their scenario look "just right"...</font>Mod Junkies can specify lists of Mods that "go together"...</font> and McMMM will let you install all those mods in one go. Junk2Drive and I have played with the current version and it basically seems to work - I need a few more people to try it before unleashing it on the world. If you're willing to give it a go, and don't mind being involved with "debugging" then drop me a note. Thanks, GaJ.

'spose this means I finally have to upgrade to 1.03!

I just read COG's December Update at CMMODS. His wife's lung capacity was down to 17%, and that was a month ago. If you have a line to a good God, please mention COG next time you're talking. If you don't, you could always follow COG's PayPal link instead.... GaJ.

Spectacular. What's "the mog"? Are you designing a scenario to play on this map? (interpretation is spelled correctly) GaJ.

Kingfish said "if your name is not on the list, please email me". So .... email him, dudes! I don't think there was any indication that you'll miss...

Yes. By far the biggest difficulty in putting this data together is that the players have not been too careful when entering the scenario name into the WeBoB database. The program that generates the list has to do fuzzy matching of all the scenario names it finds to try to recognise which ones are talking about the same scenario. The name that it ends up using for the scenario just happens to be the first name it came across. You can see the other names that people gave the scenario on the right hand side of the table. You can see that "Raff to the Rescue" is indeed on e of the names that people used for this scenario Sometimes the program gets the matching wrong, too. I think that mike8g and I have weeded most of the wrong matches out, but there may still be some there (It's kinda hard from a program to recognise that The Cematery and Cemetary are the same scenario, while Crossing the Bug is different to Crossing the Dvina). If you spot mistakes like this, let me know! Cheers, GaJ.

Over in Scenario Talk you can find a "Scenario Balance Rating List" that I recently cooked up for a number of CMAK scenarios. Its in this thread. GaJ.

Here is the list of balance ratings for CMAK Scenarios that I have data for: Scenario Balance Rating List (CMAK) (details about how this list was obtained are in this CMBB thread ) There aren't nearly as many scenarios with enough games played as there were for the CMBB case, but it's still interesting. There are enough there to at least help you choose some likely candidates for a balanced scenario for your next game. It's especially interesting to see Petracholi Rigdge with such a high imbalance factor. Hans's CMBB equivalent topped the CMBB balance list... I wonder if something went wrong in this one, or if there just aren't enough games played for this result to be meaningful yet? GaJ. [ January 28, 2005, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Whinge whinge whinge. Sheesh. You're not playing anymore? What are you doing in this forum then? Go find the "whinge about CMAK forum" somewhere else. You don't like it? As if we care... GaJ.

No, actually what I am proposing is different to CMMOS. As it always has been, the difference remains in the approach that each tool uses. My intention is for it to be _easy_ for _individual_ scenario designers to say to their users "these are the mods that go with my scenario". And for it to to be _easy_ for an individual to say "I want to load my Normandy Mods" and individually specify what they mean by that. AFAIK, this is not what CMMOS offers or provides. If it was, I'd just use that (as has always been the case: I'm not interested in duplicating something already out there, I'm just adding stuff that I wish I could do but currently can't). Cheers, GaJ.

If there's enough interest, I could set the page up with the columns sortable. (I'd have to figure out how!) In the mean time, as you say: paste into a spreadsheet and go for it. GaJ.

This is why an average of lots of games is important. These results are coming from effectively a random selection of players: people in a club who decide to play against each other. There will be results skewed far by unbalanced opponents, but these will become less significant on the average. I don't see a problem with a Scenario where the Max Allied score is 90% and the Min Allied Score is 6% ... this means that opponents of vastly different skills played Allies on different occasions. On average, though, if the Allied Score is 80%, then mostly the Allies win, which to me is not a balanced scenario.

Correct - the information is about human vs human games. The "Significance" groups Scenarios together based on the number of games played for that Scenario. Scenarios are grouped in bigger groups when they have more games played (because instinctively there is a lot of difference between an average of 4 games and the average of 8, but not much different between the average of 8 and the average of 12 games). IE scenarios with 4-7 games played are grouped together, scenarios with 8-14 games are grouped together, scenarios with 15-30 games are grouped together. The choice of grouping is utterly arbitrary - it's what turned out to be easy at the time and felt kinda right. Any suggestions for improvement welcome. GaJ.

It's good to hear you are working on that. Mighty useful tool there. I suppose you want to keep those killer features secret up to release point ? Care to tell us when that would be ? I guess this almost qualify as a bone . Cheers </font>

You are? Never thought wine had that much of an incentive to push pixel soldiers around on battlefield... </font>

One mysterious result is "Two Hostile Brothers". This scenario, which my opponent and I did not enjoy enough to play to the end, is supposedly a complete mirror image map. I wonder what has led to it resulting in such an imbalanced outcome?

If you are interested, it's in Scenario Talk

Over at We Band Of Brotheres, a fantastic list of scenario game results is available - the result of every game played by the club members. Using that (with great help from the club President in getting the raw data), I've been able to collate this <a href="http://www.gregories.net/CMBB/CMBB-Summary.htm" target="_blank"> Scenario Balance Ratings List</a>. What this list shows the "Imbalance" of each scenario, determined by how far from 50% the average Axis and average Allied scores are for that scenario. So, for example, a scenario where the average Axis score is 49% and the average Allied score is 52% has an imbalance of 3. If a balanced scenario is what you're looking for, then I think you're probably after an "Imbalance" of less than 10 or 15. I've put the scenarios first into groups depending on how many games were played - this determines the "Significance" of the result. If only 3 games have been played and the Imbalance is showing up as "40" I wouldn't consider that very "Significant". If 10 games have been played, I'd be considering it quite significant. Within each group, the table is ordered by increasing imbalance. This means that the scenarios at the top are pretty sure to be balanced scenarios. I hope this is valuable to someone - I'm certainly using it to pick candidate PBEM games... Congrats to Hans on topping the "most balanced" list with his designed-to-be-balanced-and-fun "Pershotraveneve Ridge". It's nearly the most played, and conclusively the least Imbalanced... GaJ. (scenarios where less than 4 games were played are not shown on this list, because the result is unlikely to tell us anything conclusive about the scenario) [ July 01, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

A lot of the more recent conversation has been as if there's some knowledge that individual units will actually be represented in the game mechanics. Where did that come from? I got the strong impression that we were expecting visual representation of the right number of men, but that in game mechanics it would still be the TacAI "thinking" about a squad as a whole. Any depicted individual actions would be eye candy...

If all the recent bones threads don't count as news, I don't know what does. As for disinterest in CMAK 1) Where's there any evidence of that? Why are we all refreshing hourly at B&T to sign up for ROW V if there's so much disinterest? 2) How is stimulating talk about CMx2 going to help? Well done BFC for not flaming this guy to death. It must have been tempting! [ January 26, 2005, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

On a much less exciting but more pragmatic topic, is there any chance that "dead" units could be toggled off the map (in the zoomed out diplays at least)? Kinda like "don't show vehicles" I'd like "don't show dead stuff". TJ (once known as GaJ).