aka_tom_w Posted April 26, 2001 Author Share Posted April 26, 2001 Sounds good I have not played any regualr ladder games, but i will start out my "ladder" gaming with new battles in CAL. Thanks -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 More suggestions: The artillery setting for short-75 rules should say "up to 107m", which would include the British 4.2 inch mortars. It has less blast that the 105m howitzers. Axis Heer has too many choices. Volksgrenadiere should make their own group. I would find it fair to say: if you take Volksgrenadiere, then limit vehicles and tanks to what Fallschirmjaeger have. Not that Airborne has anything to do with Volksgrenadiere, but the AFV available would make a nice balance versus the SMG troops: sdkfz 250/1, 251/1, and StuG (no StuH). All support material is allowed. Or agree on a virtual price raise for SMG troops. BTW, I cannot read http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/THCAL.shtml at all (Netscape 3.x), just the headline is showing, the date and anything below it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 The artillery setting for short-75 rules should say "up to 107m", which would include the British 4.2 inch mortars. It has less blast that the 105m howitzers.- Martin Cracauer Yes, this is planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 While we are at it, what about the Website and readability in different browsers? I also reported the rating system info page to be truncated by mail, but never got a response. Suppose I would make suggestions for more portable HTML code, could/would someone apply it? Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 We are in the final stages of setting up the Guidelines for the new CAL league. Any notes/suggestions anyone has need to be posted here soon as is convenient. All posts are read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davet_p Posted April 26, 2001 Share Posted April 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yobobo@TH: I hope to have CAL ready for this weekend. More to follow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 27, 2001 Author Share Posted April 27, 2001 the weekend is almost here BUMP ! -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 There are now 28 player's signed up. A few minor changes to the Guidelines will be made when CAL launches. If you have any ideas/suggestions you would like to make send them in today or tomorrow at the latest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labappel Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 I also think that using one nationality, regular branch and airborne branch, would make the game much more playable. The same would go for the Germans as their paratroopers fought alongside regular Heer troops during the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 We seem to agree that the simple "one force only" rule favours the German Heer too much. We have two alternatives: - Allow mix of Army and Airborne for all nations - or narrow down Heer, i.e. as I suggested by making Volksgrenadier into their own "virtual" group with reduced vehicle choices. I'd like to rephrase that option two is better, because option one opens a can of worms of combinations, for example may you mixed German airborne and Mountain troops. Also, if you allow the Airborne/Army mix, you loose much of what the narrowing down is for. We are supposed to *choose* between SMG-heavy infantry and decent tanks. One or the other, make your choice. If you allow the airborne/army mix, you don't have to choose here. The only thing that this would narrow down is mixing U.S. and U.K. units. That is rather pointless, there are not many combinations that create a problem for the game. So you can have U.S. 12-men squads with 3 inch mortars. That's not a big deal, the big one is the SMG squads with decent tanks issue. Can you name many serious game problems that arises from U.S. and U.K mix? How much would we gain from the liberale rule? Hence my suggestion to do something against the overdone German freedom, instead of freeing the allied player to do the same nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 27, 2001 Author Share Posted April 27, 2001 Martin makes a good point. Lets look at what the issue is or exactly what is the problem we are trying to solve. That problem is cherry picking that leads to the abuse of picking units by following the "The system" of cheap SMG squads and heavy tanks and towed guns, and lots of them. Lets revisit what exactly it is about "the system" of cherry picking that is offensive about it, and deal with that. We should keep in mind that even after all the new CAL rules are written competive players (perhaps even myself) will look for new ways to optimize the buying and cherry picking under the NEW CAL rules to get the best bang for the buck and optimize the unit selection for the purpose of not being out gunned when the battle commences. I am not being critical at all, I think the current proposals go ALONG way to make the game and unit selection (aka cherry picking) alot MORE balanced now. I'm looking forward to CAL ladder games. Starting this weekend maybe? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 27, 2001 Share Posted April 27, 2001 An updated version of the CAL guidelines is being done and will be available soon. The posts here and the e-mails we have been receiving have been most helpful and encouraging. Many of the ideas have been included in the update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 28, 2001 Author Share Posted April 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: An updated version of the CAL guidelines is being done and will be available soon. The posts here and the e-mails we have been receiving have been most helpful and encouraging. Many of the ideas have been included in the update.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great thanks -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 28, 2001 Author Share Posted April 28, 2001 any new news? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yobobo@TH Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 redwolf, Netscape does not like tables I.E. works great though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 Strange that my netscape handles all other tables well (would I be able to read this otherwise?), only those out of Microsoft Frontpage (and then only some, TH's amoung them) not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yobobo@TH Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 Try looking at the site in I.E. Will look into the Netscape problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martin Cracauer: While we are at it, what about the Website and readability in different browsers? I also reported the rating system info page to be truncated by mail, but never got a response. Suppose I would make suggestions for more portable HTML code, could/would someone apply it? Martin<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a web designer, I can tell you that Netscape is a joke. Get off it now and go with the lesser evil, IE. Netscape can't handle tables and even has trouble with Flash. It's not worth it for a web designer to put all the time in to satisfy Netscape users when those users total about 3-4% of the population. The best thing to do here is simply use IE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 Why narrow down the number of possible readers? TH is the only major CM website where I cannot read some pages. With all respect, TH is not such a beautiful website that it is worth the trouble. Nor seems beauty to be important for the task. IE is inacceptable on the machine I read most websites on, due to security reasons. BTW, I checked the rating system info page on IE and it still looks truncated (the same as in Netscape). Wasn't there some sentense that player classes were not supposed to play each other and the exact formular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yobobo@TH Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 You wrote: TH is the only major CM website where I cannot read some pages. TH is the only site that uses a fully automated system too. TH stats are updated automatically after every game report is made. The cgi output is on every page. Other sites are updated by hand. If I updated the sites rankings, games played and all the other automated stuff by hand, we would not have this viewing problem that you describe in Netscape, but the site would suffer. We would need a full time staff posting updates every few seconds. TH, in my opinion is second to none. But I am bias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 The only pages I cannot read are the for CAL, both seem to be hand-written. I have no problems with any other page of yours, including the user/game/whatever lists that are probably auto-generated. Also, THCAL.shtml has about 24 KB of pure text, but the page with all the invisible bloat is 268000 bytes. No wonder it loads so long. The really looks worth looking into, if you reduce some of the bloat, it will probaly work in Netscape with no problems anyway. Besides, I imagine that you don't get all data volume over the line for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: The only pages I cannot read are the for CAL, both seem to be hand-written. I have no problems with any other page of yours, including the user/game/whatever lists that are probably auto-generated. Also, THCAL.shtml has about 24 KB of pure text, but the page with all the invisible bloat is 268000 bytes. No wonder it loads so long. The really looks worth looking into, if you reduce some of the bloat, it will probaly work in Netscape with no problems anyway. Besides, I imagine that you don't get all data volume over the line for free.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That page was written as an MS Word document, not with HTML, Word likes to add a lot of unneeded bytes at times, perhaps that is the problem. [ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 You mention "Word" and "problem" in one paragraph and you dare to mention "perhaps" as well? Just kidding Anything I could do to assist in moving this to other tools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 28, 2001 Share Posted April 28, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf: You mention "Word" and "problem" in one paragraph and you dare to mention "perhaps" as well? Just kidding Anything I could do to assist in moving this to other tools?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 29, 2001 Share Posted April 29, 2001 Any questions or suggestions concerning CAL you may have can now be mailed to Abbott@tournamenthouse.com CAL is getting close to being up and running! [ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts