Jump to content

**** ROW V (Part 3) ****


Recommended Posts

True, but whatever tactical options one chose there was no way getting around the fact you had to attack at just the one point on the map. Therefore the German player knew exactly where you were attacking and could set up accordingly. No fudge factor or uncertainty with regard to where the Soviets would attack at all.

Regards

Jim R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Dawg Bonz:

If I read the NABLA scores correctly this is how the groups faired before AARs.

G4 Walpurgis Nacht = 9.34

G12 Londoner = 7.11

G5 Jon L = 4.56

G11 Platehead = 3.86

G7 Dawg Bonz = 3.51

G9 SteveS = 3.46

G3 Flenser = 3.25

G8 Malakovski = 3.21

G6 StoneAge = 2.41

G1 JPS = 2.36

G2 GreenHornet = 2.23

G10 CombinedArms =1.32

Being a ‘Dawg’ I am not capable of wearing a NABLA decoder ring.

You missed my score of 1.86 in G10. I still haven't worked out why my pre-AAR score put me in pole position for our section, I had some tough games vs some really good opponents and thought I'd screwed my chances of progressing a long time ago. Just goes to show that no matter how badly you're doing in this game, someone, somewhere just might be doing a little worse...

A big thanks to the guys in my group for some cracking games - AARs will be completed tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GAJ

"Tactical Options"

By this do you mean "different routes you could take"?

That's not the only kind of tactical options there are.

There is the choice whether to use smoke or HE.

The choice of whether to go in a large mass or in smaller spread out groups.

The choice of whether to support with tanks from behind or up front.

The choice of whether to put the smoke down first, or scout first.

I reckon there were plenty of tactical options in Moltke.

GaJ."

I am bemused that you should think there are lots of options available - but then perhaps I should have said viable somewhere in my post. : )

Scouting! Like 100% visibility whilst on the bridge - life expectancy 0%.

Tanks have to be forward otherwise you will not be able to see/kill the defenders strongpoints who will massacre your 100% exposed troops.

It really hinged around how soon you could knock-out the pillbox. Screening your tanks from ATG's demanded smoke ...... And that was about it decision wise.Of course execution of the plan required more skill than I have .... : (

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to say scores or no scores the RoW tournaments are the best CM tournaments out there.

Kingfish and the crew have done a hell of a job putting together and play testing 5 very different and interesting scenarios, organizing the tournament, keeping it on track and us informed as to the status by continuous updates for months on end.

Then there’s the acquiring and evaluating the scores and weighing the AAR’s.

I hope the grousing of a few people won’t sour the attitude of the organizers or diminish the possibility of them coordinating a RoW VI when CM2 finally arrives.

Although in no way will I be playing for the money in Round 2 (AAR bonus or no) I am looking forward to 5 more diverse scenarios, playing opponents from around the globe with different tactical styles and the results weighed against what others in the same situation have done.

Great stuff.

Thanks again your Royal Fishness and all those who put this tournament together!

Just one more thing……

When does Round 2 start!? smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entering the ROW V tournament was an interesting and hefty challenge for me. I own all three of the BFC, CM games. I have entertained myself fighting the AI. I amused myself with the map editor more than toy soldiers in battle. Dawgs are pretty easy to amuse.

At the start of ROW V the ROW V tournament I had only played five PBEM games … ever! Playing in this event doubled my PBEM tally. You can see just how productive an adventure it was for my novice PBEM background. I did have an excellent professor. Thanks Sir.

I thought I played adeptly getting two total victories, two major victories and pulling a draw from a major malfunction defeat. My overall NABLA ranking was 6th out of 72 players! I thought that was a very respectable score. I thought I ‘won’ Group 7 fairly with a NABLA score of 3.51 but now that doesn’t appear to be the case?

Mentioning annoyance, irritation, displeasure over anything is never a big deal as long as the exchange is honest and respectful. The NABLA ‘hysteria’ / discussion has been interesting but my math skills are that of a Dawg. Certain email makes it clear to me that some feel the NABLA scoring system is unfairly flawed. I was informed that our Group 7 NABLA score really means "…our group was about average for the 'closeness of the fighting', if that is a measure.." I was also informed that another member of Group 7 "… should' have been in the finals because of his overall score, but of course it doesn't work that way…"

Skill is skill. Comprehensive preparedness and competence, with luck factored in, is what leads to victory in most sports. I really did enjoy expressing my novice skills in the ROW games but the appropriate action now is bow out. I don’t want anyone to feel they were cheated out of a win by some mathematical mess up in a computer game.

I have never and will never cheat anyone in a contest of skill, even if it is a math formula malfunction. I really don’t understand all the newly discovered faults of the NABLA scoring system but it was fairly clearly indicated that some feel my advancing to the finals is a faulty aberration of NABLA. I am withdrawing from the ROW V finals. I am sure Kingfish can figure out who really should advance to the finals for Group 7.

Thanks to all the ROW V contributors. I really can imagine the amount of time and hard work involved. Thank you. You guys did a great job. Best of luck with the rest of the tournament. Best of luck to whomever advances from Group 7 and the rest of the ROW finalist. Have fun in the games.

Sincerely,

Dawg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dawg Bonz:

I really did enjoy expressing my novice skills in the ROW games but the appropriate action now is bow out. I don?t want anyone to feel they were cheated out of a win by some mathematical mess up in a computer game.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...nothing in the discussion of the intricacies of the scoring system should make anyone feel a win was unfair.

You've alluded to some emails, so perhaps the tenor of those discussions is different, but I don't think there should be any second guessing of the scoring of this tournament. We all went into it knowing it was going to be scored in a certain way (i.e. nabla with section winners advancing), that's the way it was scored, and no one has a right to complain about this tournament.

The discussion in the other thread is about how the nabla system could be adjusted to address some relatively minor issues of imbalance in particular instances.

I at least have never looked at it as people having won who shouldn't have. I used WN's big win in Maleme as an example of case in which nabla may have awarded a higher score than might be ideal, since it was impossible to score that high from the other side, but I also think WN would have won his section no matter what scoring system was used.

It's an issue of refinement of a good system, not wholesale criticism.

If anyone's been emailing you and telling you should not have won, that's their problem and their poor sportsmanship, and they don't deserve to be in the finals for that reason alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dawg Bonz:

I am withdrawing from the ROW V finals. I am sure Kingfish can figure out who really should advance to the finals for Group 7.

Noooooooooooooo! You're the winner Dawg....simple as that. Do NOT withdraw! </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to agree with all above and add emphasis: the whole Nabla discussion has nothing to do with the current results for ROWV. We've had 4 other ROWs to discover this issue: if it was a showstopper kind of problem, it would have been found long ago. I

One of the reasons I started a new thread for the discussions was exactly this: it's a discussion about how a scoring system might be improved in the future, not to be tangled up with ROWV.

It's a subtle thing, which really only stood out when someone posted the Nabla scores for a round by side. As you will see, if you look in the other thread, the maths and rationales involved are complicated... it's not so easy to take everything into account, and even when you do, there is debate about what is "fair".

The basic fact remains that the people who did well would show up as doing well no matter what. The winners won fair and square.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU ALL - YOUR CM SKILLS ARE AMAZING, and your ROW results are well deserved.

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dawg Bonz, your offer to withdraw from the tournament is not appropriate as you clearly won your group fair & square with, as Malakovski pointing out, your big score being in an even battle. The even battles is not where the problem lies & therefore you should reconsider your action.

If anyone has emailed Dawg Bonz about this suggesting he didn't deserve to go through then they're completely wrong and is extremely poor form. As I've said in a previous post, we all agreed to the scoring system we have so no-one can't complain about it for this tournament but can suggest improvements for future tournaments.

Regards

Jim R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem.

I'm the one that emailed Dawg. Just prior to mine, he'd sent out an email suggesting that our group was 5th overall, based on the group leaders overall score. Here is the full text of my reply:

No, I don't think you can rank the _groups_ like that. WNs high score is an indication that he thrashed everyone in his group (and, incidentally, he also came 1st or nearly 1st in many of the indiv scens), while the low score for, say, group 10 (Combined Arms: 1.32) indicates that the fighting in that group was very closely contested. So our group was about average for the 'closeness of the fighting', if that is a measure.

I've attached a spreadsheet I was playing around with yesterday. The winner of each group is bolded. Our group is in italics. You can see that [name removed] 'should' have been in the finals because of his overall score, but of course it doesn't work that way.

The analysis in the first paragraph was off the cuff, and not meant to imply that the quality of the fighting or the fighters was average, but that the results of of it were. In other words, we got neither the extremes of WNs group, nor the close results of CAs group.

In the second paragraph when I said the [name removed] 'should' have gone through to the finals it was because, overall [name removed] scored higher than three of the other group winners. I did NOT mean that [name removed] 'should' have gone through instead of Dawg. I put it in inverted commas to indicate that I don't actually believe that, but that a simple comparison might lead one to think that. The group winners won their groups, so they go through. End of story.

My apologies to Dawg for the misunderstanding, and to the rest of ROW V for the fallout from it :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a good morning to all...

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've been keeping a close eye on the discussions both here and GAJ's thread. Good to see so many people taking an interest in this, and offering constructive ideas on how to improve the system.

That said, it should be made clear to everyone that ROW V will finish out with the current system in place. Switching over to a new program midway thru, without any comprehensive testing,[Fu Manchu voice] would be most unwise.[/Fu Manchu voice]

As for Dawg, can't say I agree with his decision, but it is his decision. The door is open, so he can come in and return to his original spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Well, a good morning to all...

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've been keeping a close eye on the discussions both here and GAJ's thread. Good to see so many people taking an interest in this, and offering constructive ideas on how to improve the system.

That said, it should be made clear to everyone that ROW V will finish out with the current system in place. Switching over to a new program midway thru, without any comprehensive testing,[Fu Manchu voice] would be most unwise.[/Fu Manchu voice]

As for Dawg, can't say I agree with his decision, but it is his decision. The door is open, so he can come in and return to his original spot.

Kingfish I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the scoring be changed at this point. Put away the long fingernails :D

I would like to add my 2 centavos into the Dawg situation.

While lurking through the ROW threads for these past few months, one thing struck me.....while most of the posters seemed to be having fun in the tournament, Dawg's posts indicated a certain JOY and excitement that none of the others had. That being said...I think it is a real shame that because of this scoring discussion, a person who obviously had a great time with the whole ROW experience, is now experiencing much less than that.

I hope he understands that this type of discussion is common in the CM community, and that no one, and I mean no one...is attempting to demean his achievement in the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Malakovski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dawg Bonz:

I am withdrawing from the ROW V finals. I am sure Kingfish can figure out who really should advance to the finals for Group 7.

Noooooooooooooo! You're the winner Dawg....simple as that. Do NOT withdraw! </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am feeling guilty since I am the one whose name Jon tactfully removed. That e-mail was sent to everyone in the group, and it seemed to me that the meaning was clear: the only circumstances in which I would gain entry into the finals is if it was worked out on the basis of top scores overall (in which I would be 12th), which it most definitely is not.

There was never any suggestion in the e-mails that I read that his winning was anthing other than due to the fact that he was the strongest player in the group.

Come back Dawg! You're being too sensitive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous.

We all agreed to play by these rules. 'Nuff said.

Having said that, it's totally healthy to have a debate about the rules, with an eye to the next TOURNAMENT (Kingfish et al note my confidence that there will be a next tournament thank you very much you guys rule a labor of love doesn't even come close!!).

But I think the second round must maintain the same rules.

Having said that - Dawg - Come home boy! Timmy's in trouble! (for those of you grizzled enough to remember that) It's true that your posts torment the English language as has seldom been done before, but I agree with Nidan1 that they are refreshing. Plus if you only played a few PBEMs before coming in here then you are some kind of freaking CMozart or sumthin'. Leaving the tourney now is a little "I'm taking my ball and going home", so stick around and kick a little more ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...