Proposed T-House Combined Arms League Format for New CMBO Historical Ladder

[aka_tom_w]

Here's the Read Me
http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/THCAL.shtml

If you are interested in this please vote here:
http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/Vote.shtml

(only seems to work in IE)

Here are Abbott's proposals:

(from the Read Me)

Tournamenthouse Combined Arms League Format (for NEW Ladder)

These Rules are not intended to be historically accurate. Their intent is to provide a level playing field for League Play with Combat Mission Beyond Overlord. (Modified from Fionn Kelly’s rules for Tournamenthouse league play by Abbott).

Game Types

There are four game types, one of which that may be agreed upon before the setup of the game. They are:

Recon. Rule.

Short-75.

Panther-76.

Heavy Armor.

Maps

Upon entering the game during setup and seeing the map a player has the right to decline the setup and ask for another if he feels the map favors one player or the other.*

Settings

The setting of “Combined Arms” (exception, Heavy Armor rules) will be used in conjunction with games played under these rules.

Force Type

Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German “Heer” Allied “British”.

Weather

Weather settings are up to the player’s decision/agreement. Random Weather is the suggested setting.

Guns

Towed guns will be limited to no more then 3 per side up to 1000 points spent. 1 gun per 1000 points spent thereafter. (Example 2,000-point game up to 4 guns allowed per side, 5,000-point game up to 7 guns per side). This includes all guns from the “support” category of CMBO.

German SMG Troops

German SMG platoons and Volksgrenadier armed with SMG will be limited to no more then 3 platoons allowed per game. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the player’s before setup.

Bunkers & Aircraft

Bunkers and Aircraft should be EXCLUDED for games played under 'Recon Rule', 'Short-75 Rule' and Panther-76 Rule' unless both players agree to their inclusion from the outset and can prepare accordingly.

Artillery

1. Recon Rule - up to and including 81mm caliber.

2. Short-75 Rule - up to and including 105mm caliber.

3. Panther-76 Rule - up to and including 155mm caliber.

4. Heavy Armor rule- all types from CMBO included.

Recon Rule

The 'Recon Rule' game allows vehicles, including light tanks, to be included but limited to those with maximum 50mm guns. The Germans can field Pumas.

Halftracks, mortar carriers and flame-thrower vehicles are all allowed, but not flame-thrower tanks.

60mm, 75mm and 81mm mortars and FO’s are all allowed, 81mm being the maximum.

There is no limit to the size of towed guns permitted.

Short-75 Rule

Anti-Tank guns are not on the excluded list, although deadly to tanks, they are highly vulnerable to shelling and infantry attack.

Tanks with larger caliber weapons such as the 95mm, 105mm, and 150mm guns are included as they do not fire AP rounds, and carry a very limited number of hollow core (c).


Heavy Armor

Games, which are agreed upon to include heavy armor (no exclusions from the purchasable armor units included in CMBO) will only include the following rules listed above. Weather, Guns and SMG Troops. All caliber’s of artillery (FO’s) are allowed as are Bunkers and Aircraft. A setting of Unrestricted or Armor may be needed for smaller point battles, which include the heavy armor units.

*

Whatever rules you choose to play by just be sure your opponent agrees with all of them before starting the battle. Proper communication beforehand is the key to enjoyable League play.

Thank you to Fionn Kelly for the original ideas and for most of the above data.

SO??

What do you think

if you prefer to play in a NEW ladder with historical units, and these new restrictions, please vote for the new ladder.

Thanks to Abbott for initiating this proposal and getting this ladder up and running.

Now ALL you have do to is VOTE!

-tom w

[Dirtweasle]

I like the idea, but am not a registered user on that site. If the proposed ladder is implemented, I'd join it. I do not want to join TH in it's current state just to vote.

Good luck, I hope this alternate format is added over there.

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dirtweasle:
I like the idea, but am not a registered user on that site. If the proposed ladder is implemented, I'd join it. I do not want to join TH in it's current state just to vote.

Good luck, I hope this alternate format is added over there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your vote for the idea would be great to have on the poll. It looks like we have a winner going from the reply's Yobobo and I have been receiving.

[Davet_p]

I registerd for it and want to use it. So far it is the only Ladder/League going that I would care to use.

[yobobo@TH]

I receive email on this idea every week. The idea behind it really is just an option for the players. We will have new members signing up for this from outside TH's existing CM ladder. I'm thinking about 25% of our existing ladder will join and play on it full time. 50% will be involved in both ladders, 25% wont go near it. I am sure it will evolve as time goes by, including updated rules etc..
You cant sign up for yet, as it does not exist. We want to see how many really want this first. The members at TH that already play by these rules, stick to playing others that use the same. We end up with small groups, that only play within a 5 or 6 player circle. This would open the doors for them and make one large circle.

Rob http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/

[Dirtweasle]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yobobo@TH:
...The members at TH that already play by these rules, stick to playing others that use the same. We end up with small groups, that only play within a 5 or 6 player circle. This would open the doors for them and make one large circle.

Rob http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure I understand your post. Could you clarify what this means? (I am assuming you are the Sys Admin / game master over there at TH) Are you going to open a new section for players who desire the combined-arms structured rules as outlined above? Depending on how I read your post either you are for the idea or are lobbying against it. :confused:

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dirtweasle:
Not sure I understand your post. Could you clarify what this means? (I am assuming you are the Sys Admin / game master over there at TH) Are you going to open a new section for players who desire the combined-arms structured rules as outlined above? Depending on how I read your post either you are for the idea or are lobbying against it. :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, when enough interested players sign-up a new section will be added as "The Combined Arms League". Which will allow another aspect of play to accommodate different play styles. Some of the current members will probably play in the new league, some in both the new League and the current Ladder. Some will just continue with the current Ladder.

[yobobo@TH]

Hmm, Forum posting is not one of my strong points smile.gif The whole typing thing is a nasty process. My thumbs are way to big.

I am for the optional league. It will help those that only play by these rules find opponents and compete. Really that's all there is to it.

[Londoner]

Well IMO its a good idea in principle but pointless in reality. On the current ladder I've played about 10 games. Only one or two of these games was "unrestricted", the rest being short 75, Oct 44 or before(no SMG squads) and sometimes only one force type allowed. Everybody I've asked at TH with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, have happily agreed to these rules. Most peeps on TH are more than willing to go by fionns rules in some shape or form.
From my experience this "powergamer" thing has been blown out of all proportion. If someone will not agree to any restrictions dont play em, theres hundreds of peeps on the ladder no? My point is that the system you suggest is already in operation. What happens if someone only whats "heavy armour" on the new ladder? Nothing, you cant force him to play a certain type of battle. Exactly like the current setup. If you really want to formalise these rules why not simply apply them to the current ladder?

[Redwolf]

Londoner,

exactly my thoughts. Most of my TH games are with some kind of agreement like random weather, short 75 etc and even computer-selected forces. I had games with agreement on realistic forces withoyt problems.

Alternative to a seperate ladder: let normal TH game loss reports specify whether they agreed to some standard rule like the one proposed. Then, compute a second ladder just from those that agree to this rule. However, *just* compute, there is no seperate player community. All games also count for the normal ladder, so a "realistic-searching" player can play any "well, OK" player on TH, but the "well, OK" gamer gets his point for the standard TH ladder and the former player will probably not care abou the standard ladder anyway.

[Abbott]

The Combined Arms League (CAL) does not effect the current Ladder system at Tournamenthouse, it adds a new option for play at the site. Baseball’s American League and National League one with a Designated Hitter, one without comes to mind. Both Leagues function well with different guidelines. It also allows the player’s using the guidelines to quickly determine which type of game they would like to play with the knowledge that their prospective opponent is already aware of the guidelines in place.

Another thought that’s comes to mind from your posts Londoner and Martin would be the
National Football League and the American Football League both function very well and are different Leagues within the same organization. We could even add Playoffs and a Superbowl for future fun in a tournament!

[Davet_p]

When will the League be available for use?

[Wreck]

Here are my comments. Mostly changes to the defaults which I would like to see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If you are interested in this please vote here [url] ... (only seems to work in IE)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... first off seems to me that holding a vote where you are only allowed to vote yes in part defeats the purpose of putting it up for a vote. No? Maybe there are folks in the current TH that do not want everyone to run off to a new ladder. Now of course Yo and co have every right to set up all the ladders they want. But they don't need a vote for that, do they? Seems to me the only reason for holding a vote is to gauge interest. You should not pretend to be doing so with the "voice" of the community without at *least* a possible no-vote. And really might be nice to put in a "no as currently constituted", and maybe an abstain as well.

We can handle complexity. This ain't Florida.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Force Type

Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German ?Heer? Allied ?British?.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A quibble, but I would prefer this to be called the "fixed forces" rule (or perhaps "fixed force type"). I always impose it on my games at TH, and I have to explain what it means maybe half the time. One advantage of extra rulesets like this (even for people not on the same ladder) is I could just point people there, in fact they would probably know it already.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Weather settings are up to the player?s decision/agreement. Random Weather is the suggested setting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like the default setting to be either clear (since that is the program's default), or overcast. Definitely *not* random. That helps to turn the game into a crapshoot. If games are played for a ladder I don't want to lose because of some uncontrollable rare event, i.e., a panther bogging down behind a hill.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Towed guns will be limited to no more then 3 per side up to 1000 points spent. 1 gun per 1000 points spent thereafter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dislike this rule -- it is kludgy -- but I have nothing better to propose just now. I shall think on it.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
German SMG platoons and Volksgrenadier armed with SMG will be limited to no more then 3 platoons allowed per game. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the player?s before setup.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3 platoons?? Way too much. For smaller games (800, 1000 points) this is a fair fraction of your infantry force. VGs are also a great way to get a company commander without having to buy crap.

We should simply forbid VGs, period. With fixed forces that basically covers what is needed, though Fjs would still be pretty good and might have to be banned. Gjs get no tanks, so are not that viable in combined arms terms.

Incidentally, similarly to banning VGs, I think you might set up a blacklist of other banned units, units that are either dangerously underpriced, or else have the capability to be used in a very gamey fashion. I am thinking here of wasps and Sd7/2s, though there may be others as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Bunkers and Aircraft should be EXCLUDED for games played under 'Recon Rule', 'Short-75 Rule' and Panther-76 Rule' unless both players agree to their inclusion from the outset and can prepare accordingly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, with aircraft if the default weather is overcast, then there is no problem and this rule can be elided. Allowing the opponent "clear" is an invitation to use air.

As for bunkers, I have not found them imbalancing. Heck, the defense (as far as I can determine) needs everything it can get. So could somebody explain the need for this rule?

[Wreck]

Something I would like to see in the new ladder if it happens, is adding to the reporting who had which side/force. This would allow the collection of a convincing set of data regarding axis/allied balance.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck:
Something I would like to see in the new ladder if it happens, is adding to the reporting who had which side/force. This would allow the collection of a convincing set of data regarding axis/allied balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is agreat idea

It would be very interesting to have this "historical ladder" set up and track wins and losses and force type and nationality.
"This would allow the collection of a convincing set of data regarding axis/allied balance"

VERY good point.

-tom w

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck:
Something I would like to see in the new ladder if it happens, is adding to the reporting who had which side/force. This would allow the collection of a convincing set of data regarding axis/allied balance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also like to see this Wreck. The AAR's (comments filed) should include which rules set was used, who played which side, points allotted and a brief description of the battle. That would be a useful and entertaining bit of information.

[Hensworth]

It's great to see that the interest in historical ladder play is on the rise.

However, I fail to see why people keep insisting on using rules to supposedly level the odds.

Overcoming disadvantages in terrain, weather, troop experience and available assets is as much a part of the tactical problem as directing the actual movements.

Rather then devise ever more elaborate schemes to make sure that we are playing with fair odds (which is never the case in reality), could we not have a ladder where all settings MUST be random. I agree that the forces determined by the game are not always completely realistic, but in general I think you get more or less a fair deal.

Sure, you will lose some games because you got stuck with useless units, but this will also happen to the other members. Plus there is the ultimate kick of beating a human opponent AGAINST the odds.

In short, you win some, you lose some. If you're good, you will still win more than you lose and rise. It would also be an incentive to play many games because this decreases the random factor.

Such a ladder would, in my view, have the truly great tacticians who can overcome adversity and still hand out a good drubbing, at the top.

[aka_tom_w]

just a friendly bump

-tom w

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I fail to see why people keep insisting on using rules to supposedly level the odds.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Because we want fair battles. I realize you are arguing for a higher level of fairness, but you are talking about hours of time invested per game. That alone makes computer picking questionable. Do you really want to play out a forgone conclusion for the next two hours while your opponent probes to discover that you have no infantry?

Talking about using the computer picked forces: I don't know if you have much experience with it, but at least at the lower point levels (800, 1000 pts), I have enough to know that you rarely get a balanced force. I have had forces crippled in many ways. In one I got a fleet of halftracks armed with mortars and 20mm flak. In one I got pioneers. In all my games but one, one side or the other got only a single platoon of infantry. Yesterday I got almost no armor, but my opponent got two FOs -- for an 800 point force -- plus additional mortars on map.

As it happens, I have won all of my computer picked battles. And yes, it *was* a challenge to win the time I got a single platoon of pioneers. And I enjoyed it; it was a challenge to think of ways to bait my opponent into various mistakes, then rush the flags for a minor. But that's what it was -- mistakes, plus the fact that he did not really set up for a rush. In other words I was not really playing a straight-up tactical game, but probing and exploiting ignorance on his part, and gaming the endgame.

Other games, like the win yesterday, were not worth playing. As soon as the forces were chosen it was mine to win, and I did not make any serious mistakes. Whoo. Yes it is fair in the sense that our pre-generation chance to get the superior force was about the same. But it was not fair post-generation, and there was 2 hours of that before the inevitable. Something about that strikes me as wrong. Perhaps I could have just said, upon seeing the map and forces: I win, you lose, report the loss and let's roll again eh?

Give me a decent computer picking algorithm (which would not be hard to do), and I would be much happier with the idea of a computer-picks ladder. Right now, though, the thing is too broken to be that interesting.

[Abbott]

There are twenty-four members signed up for CAL as of today!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, I'm not currently on the TH ladder (I'm on RD), but I'll throw out a few thoughts for the hell of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Only one force type for German and Allied sides may be chosen. Example: German “Heer” Allied “British”.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me this would really favor the Germans. They can still get units with high short range FP (SS Motorized) with armor support while the Allies (and especially the Brits) are stuck with vanilla riflemen if they want some armor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

German SMG Troops

German SMG platoons and Volksgrenadier armed with SMG will be limited to no more then 3 platoons allowed per game. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the player’s before setup.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shouldn't this scale for game size same as with towed guns?

I'm all in favor of random weather.

[ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Londoner]

Aye Van, I always play Brits when playing allies and those standard rifleman are markedly inferior, due to those 8 Lee Enfields. A fairer rule would be force choice limited to 1 nationality for allies IMO. The airborne/glider squads have about the same FP at close range as the motorised squads no?

[Abbott]

There are now 25 enrolled for CAL.

[yobobo@TH]

Howdy,

Here is the plan.
We will use the existing database for CAL(Combined Arms League).
CM@TH members will have some extra stats and features. The report area will have a few extra features as well.
Existing members will have the option to be included in CAL. At any time you can be added to CAL.
In our CM report area we will have an extra drop down field. Members will be able to pick what game type they just played. CAL, Regular or both. If it was a CAL game, It will show up in the CAL area. Top 20 etc.
Players will also have more stats.
Axis or Allied games played, won loss etc.. Total games played, CAL games played, Reg. games played, Reg. rating, CAL rating etc. through all the currant stats.
When inside the CAL area you will only see CAL stats, Top 20, CAL members etc..
I hope to have CAL ready for this weekend.

More to follow.

[Abbott]

I have not addressed a few of the issues posted above yet. There will be a CAL contact link at the CAL page. Feel free to open a dialogue on any issues that come to mind when this contact link becomes available.

CAL's main purpose it to promote a friendly and level playing field for CAL rated games. Any and all ideas/suggestions are welcome and mail will be returned.

[aka_tom_w]

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

[Redwolf]

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.

[Abbott]

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.

[Redwolf]

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

[Abbott]

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.

[Davet_p]

<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!

[aka_tom_w]

the weekend is almost here

BUMP !
smile.gif

-tom w

[Abbott]

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.

[labappel]

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.

[Redwolf]

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.

[aka_tom_w]

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

[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.

[aka_tom_w]

<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

[aka_tom_w]

any new news?

-tom w

[yobobo@TH]

redwolf,

Netscape does not like tables :(
I.E. works great though.

[Redwolf]

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.

[yobobo@TH]

Try looking at the site in I.E.
Will look into the Netscape problem.

[Colonel_Deadmarsh]

<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.

[Redwolf]

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?

[yobobo@TH]

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 smile.gif

[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.

[Abbott]

<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 ]

[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?

[Abbott]

<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 smile.gif

[Abbott]

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 ]

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martin Cracauer:
...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?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this leads to exactly the same situation with the Allies (American 12-man Glider squads supported by Churchills and Fireflys) that yr trying to remedy with the Heer Volksgren units by limiting the choice of armor available to them: Force a choice of good infantry or good armor, not cherry-pick both.

[Flipper]

RANDOM FORCE'S ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!get's rid of all that GAMEY DRECK!!!!!!!!!!!

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flipper:
RANDOM FORCE'S ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!get's rid of all that GAMEY DRECK!!!!!!!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree many times computer picked forces lead to some fun and interesting games. This would be an option if there were not a security issue.

Maybe in CMBB this will be addressed. I am imaging now the fun of random forces picked throughout the four year conflict that would lead to many interesting battles!

[Redwolf]

Computer picking would be great, however, the mechanism currently in CMBO is just not good enough. It often gives forces that have barely anything to do with what you selected and often is outright unfair to one side. I also don't see that it is very historical, few homogenous tank platoons, many SP guns in frontline etc.

In a coorporate ladder -like TH:CAL seem to become- it would make more sense to have a trusted third person choose forces and send his selection to both players. Tournament save is not overly useful since you had to do much of the terrain, flag placement and assault/defence difference yourself. The QB mechanism is quite good here, IMHO. So just send an email with: "you will take x, y, z".

This can also be extended so that 80 or 90% of the points are given and you spend the rest yourself so that you can't later
groan "had I just one Marder", but without being able to optimize forces point-wise.

Of course, I offer this service to anyone interested.

[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]