dieseltaylor Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Basically a discussion on running tournaments. Over at BoB we have stacks of running tournaments in many different permutations. As is always the case "fairness" of the tournament design raises its head. I would hasten to point out not in a carping way as the club is run for fun not for divas. Just a pursuit of excellence : ) Anyway in our latest perambulation around the possibilities NABLA was mentioned and I have generally good feelings about that. Particularly if it uses my amendment giving two winners by doing away with the problem area of who fought the more scoreable series of battles. Not a huge problem but it was aired at the last RoW tournament However in discussing this the role of Variable Endings and Mirrored battles have been raised. Personally I regard mirrored battles as a complete abomination in that endeavouring to provide fairness they ignore the fact that war is mainly fought in ignorance of your enemies true force. There are other complaints that can be laid at the concept whether they are played consecutively or contemporaneously. Variable endings is interesting in that it has almost been de facto that all games will be VE. However in a tournament where the players are all meant to be competing on the same map this could screw the results. I would add a caveat here that in fact if the battles are ME the variable ending at game start is neutral. This is certainly not true in A/D battles where the defender will always suffer in a lengthened game. I thought I would air the subject here to gather some opinions on the points raised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 IMO, there is no better method of scoring a tournament than the NABLA system. I should add that I am referring to the complete NABLA system, which included the computer program designed by Jarmo Hurri a.k.a "Nabla". The modified version I adopted midway thru ROW III (or was it IV?) and used from then on was discovered to have some flaws in it, a fact I'll be the first to admit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Must have been ROW III she came in, I remember it being in ROW IV from the outset... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 dieseltaylor, I consider the Nabla system to be the tremendous advance in CM tournaments, in that it frees designers and players alike from the artificial condition known as play balance and allows people to see what they can do in impossible conditions and all sorts of other ones besides. For scenario designers, it's veritable manumission, permitting the exploration of all manner of fascinating, heretofore off limits possibilites. For players, it matters not that the foe has ubertanks, only how well you do against them relative to everyone else playing your side in the scenario. I've had my head handed to me in such fights and still won big--by bleeding my opponent as much as possible then evacuating my force, denying him the VPs he would otherwise have obtained. The Nabla system rewards rational combat actions, not the default CM practice of fighting to the last man. Altogether more realistic, and something later ROW players watched like hawks as they fought battle after battle, ever attentive to the aggregate force performance bottom line as the battle unfolded. Knowing when to withdraw and then doing it without triggering autosurrender was a high art and a ticklish one. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvidae Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Am I the only one who wound up curled up on the floor laughing my ass off at the acronym NABLA ? And its similarity to another acronym that has an "M" in it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Corvidae, Trust me when I say this has been noted and archly commented upon before! Am not sure, but I think it's someone's name, rather than being an acronym. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Originally posted by John Kettler: Corvidae, Trust me when I say this has been noted and archly commented upon before! Am not sure, but I think it's someone's name, rather than being an acronym. Regards, John Kettler The Nabla symbol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Kingfish, Had no idea. Thanks! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.