Call for participants: Nordic Championships

[Cogust]

Drat! Seems like I missed out on the fun stuff!

Well, put me on the reserve list then:

connyf94@acc.umu.se

[Nabla]

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

In appreciation for Nabla's scoring system that we are using in Wild Bill's Rumblings of War Tourney, plus the diligent work of a certain Number 155 in other well run tourneys, as well as the fact that most of these Nords like warm stuff (coffee excluding), I'll put up 6 bottles of fine South African wine for the winner on recommendation, postage paid by me.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

<hr></blockquote>

Charl,

This is a perfect first prize for any tournament. I am extremely grateful for this wonderful contribution, as is without a doubt also the ultimate winner of this tournament (and his wife / girlfried ).

The spirit of the CM community keeps amazing me.

[Nabla]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:A question about the scenario set ups:

I take it that since the scoring will be modelled after bridge the scenarios we will play will allow free placement of troops anywhere(within the players side of the map of course) without any restrictive deployment zones.<hr></blockquote>

This is something I've had to think about quite a bit. Although I'm not sure how it is related to the scoring system... Anyway, the element of surprise - or, to be more accurate, the possibility of an element of surprise - is important in unbalanced scenarios. The way in which these elements are introduced is also important. To take an extreme example, if in a normal attack you and your opponent both know that you have the forces to crush him totally, he should just run away as fast as possible. However, if only you know that you have superiority (or suspect it), the situation is much more interesting. Therefore generally the element of surprise is hidden from at least one side.

However, sometimes some of the elements of surprise can be present at the very beginning, and it is a whole lot easier to have them around at round 1. Let us think about the following hypothetical situation. Your task is to occupy a certain area, that is, move to the area and make sure that it's secure. As far as you know the area should be practically free of enemies.

First, it would be pretty boring to have you perform the task up to the point where something happens. Your opponent would probably be bored to death.

Second, although the (possibly) unbalanced nature of scenarios in this tournament adds certain ingredients of realism into the game it also brings along a new type of unrealism, which is impossible in balanced games. In the real world you would not assume that an enemy task force hits the area as soon as you get there. You would take some precautions, but the assumption would be that you'd be ok. In this tournament if you would get an occupy task such as the one described above, you'd suspect that something terrible is waiting for you. We'd still have to havesomething happening in each game. Therefore it would be somewhat unrealistic to have you waiting for the worst.

Which brings us to the third important point: orders. For the sake of realism it is very important that you have reasonable orders. The occupy order given above is not reasonable - in the real world when something surprising happens you should contact your superiors. You can't do that in CM. There are two ways to handle that situation: fallback orders and having elements of surprise since the very beginning. Fallback orders tell you what to do if something goes wrong. These are also a delicate issue since fallback orders should not always apply - hence the possibility of surprise. The second way is to have the element of surprise there immediately, and to give immediate orders on how to deal with the surprise. Sometimes this second option is just a lot more realistic and natural way to handle orders. Fallback orders are at their best when the probability of a threat is fairly high. You can't give fallback orders for every possible situation.

Now we come, finally, to your question regarding the placement of units. Now, assuming that an element of surprise is there since the very beginning it would be unrealistic to have you place units yourself. You would know what the surprise is, and the resulting unit placement would be so far from what it would be in the real situation that the idea would be spoiled. So sometimes you just have to start at fixed - that is, locked - positions. The problem here for the scenario maker is to have reasonable and realistic starting positions. Since what is reasonable and realistic is largely a matter of opinion, the initial placement will probably not make some people happy. But the placement is the same for all players playing on the same side. Remember, your result is compared against those guys.

Also, sometimes units are just placed in different spatial locations because they would be naturally there. Some obstacle may prevent you from exchanging their positions. In such cases the placement can be restricted to certain areas.

There are also other issues related to this, but these are the most important ones. I know that this message has become ridiculously long,but this is important.

Did this answer your question (I'm afraid to even ask )?

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Nabla ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

Thank you WineCape! You've been so generous in the past I'm afraid to ask you anymore, especially since we already have a WineCape sponsored CMBB tournament in the works.

It appears from Nabla's post above that his scenarios are carefully thought out. He may be joining the ranks of our Uberdesigners after this tournament, eh?

So you have a nice prize, Wild Bill scenarios, Nabla scenarios, an excellent scoring system by Nabla, an excellent scheduling program by Nabla, and a dedicated tourney manager. In return for this all you need to do is complete your games by the deadline. Ultimately, the success of the tournament depends on the participants doing just that.

I am putting together the sections and generating schedules now. I will post all this later today.

It's gonna be good!!

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Here are your section assignments:

SECTION ONE

Juha Ahoniemi (Finland)

Ari Maenpaa (Finland)

Topi (Finland)

Heibis (Norway)

vskalex (Sweden)

Ghost Dog (Sweden)

SECTION TWO

Tuomas (Finland)

Jarmo (Finland)

Sesam (Finland)

Dr Alimantado (Sweden)

Patrik (Sweden)

Dragoon19 (Denmark)

SECTION THREE

tero (Finland)

tss (Finland)

Juha Keratar (Finland)

Stefan Fredrikson (Sweden)

Von Heinrich (Sweden)

Loke (Norway)

SECTION FOUR

PasiN (Finland)

Pixie (Finland)

AS (?)

Mattias (Sweden)

Romeoman (Sweden)

Joseph Porta (Norway)

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

Here is your schedule. The Allied player is always on the left. You will play either 3 games as Allies or 2 games as Allies. Your attack/defend duties are not taken into consideration. You may be on the attack in all five scenarios or vise versa. You never know what the fortunes of war may require of you. The scenarios are unbalanced and unfair, just like the real thing. The tournament is still very fair because of Nabla's scoring system. Scenario imbalance is not a problem!! If you get wiped out, there is a good chance the eleven other people who played that scenario from the same side will also do poorly. It is possible to lose 80-20 and still get more "tourney points" for that scenario than your opponent. Do not get discouraged by a bad score. You won't really know what a good or bad score is until the very end.

If you look at Section One/Scenario One you will notice that Juha will have his score compared to Topi and Heibis for that scenario. If you continue down, looking at Juha's schedule, you will see that his scores will be compared against everyone else in his section two times. This is true for everyone and is very important for fairness. This is much more important than who attacks or defends. Attack/defend duties do not matter at all except for giving the players some variety. Chances are you will not do one or the other exclusively.

If you have questions about the scoring system check Nabla's link at the top of this thread. All is explained for those who are interested. However, it is not necessary to understand the scoring system. Just fight your war as best you can. Since you will not have knowledge of any game results except your own there is no way to plan a strategy around the scoring system anyway. You are completely in the dark, even the UberFinns are blind as to the war around them.

EDIT: The schedule has been deleted due to leaks in the Nordic Wannabee tournament. You true Nordics have been fine, but it's better not to take chances.

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]</p>

[Juha Ahoniemi]

I enjoy the spotlight (although it is always the same at halloween-time, without any costume even.)!

Oh Yeah there is extra added treat for me: I have a chance to kick crap out of Ari! I hope I can cure his fetish for germans!

It is nice to know I will win at least one opponent!

Long rule the über-Finns!!!

Juha

[Treeburst155]

Now it is time for my lecture on gamey play. There are no rules concerning such play because every situation is different. What might be gamey in one situation might be perfectly OK in another. There is also disagreement on what is or isn't gamey.

There are however some tactics that are generally considered gamey. If you use such tactics you may detract from your opponents' enjoyment of the game. Below is a list of tactics generally accepted as gamey. Discuss this list with your opponents. You should know how he feels about the list. Gamey tactics aren't nearly as effective if you KNOW your opponent is going to use them. If you know he intends to use some of these tactics you can defend against the tactics or use them yourself.

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of coming to an understanding with your opponents concerning this list. Be truthful with your opponents if you intend to use any of the tactics below.

POTENTIALLY Gamey Tactics-Use at your own risk. Your opponent may not like it if he sees these things.

1) Setting fire to "squares" or buildings unoccupied by enemy troops, ESPECIALLY to deny a VL or covered access to one.

2) Advancing large formations along the map edge.

3) Scouting with AT teams, crews of knocked out vehicles or guns, MG teams, and anybody who is "low" on ammo.

4) Recon with light (cheap) vehicles well into enemy territory.

5) Exposing AT teams and FOs SOLEY for the purpose of drawing enemy fire.

6) Ordering vehicle and gun crews to participate in an attack or hunt down enemy teams or spotters.

7) Rushing infantry straight at a known enemy position (especially through cover) WHILE TARGETING THEM with the running units, and with no supporting/suppressive fire.

8) Rushing the flag(s) in the last turn or two when you would have no hope of surviving were the game to go another turn or two.

Avoid these tactics and you are safe. Use them and you have stepped into the risky gray area of "Potentially Gamey Tactics".

GOLDEN RULES:

Protect your AT teams until they have a target.

Use half squads and spare HQs for scouting/recon.

Keep your vehicle/gun crews alive.

Ask yourself the following questions while giving orders:

1) Would the order be given in real life?

2) Would the order be obeyed in real life?

3) Will the results of that order affect the battle in a realistic way or will you be exploiting imperfections of the game engine?

Treeburst155 out.

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]</p>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Nabla:

Although I'm not sure how it is related to the scoring system...

In bridge the player is not restricted in his use of the cards he is dealt.

But the placement is the same for all players playing on the same side. Remember, your result is compared against those guys.

That would be paramount to having the exact the same cards with the rest of the guys in your side and you would have to start the sequence of play with the same card as the rest of the guys with your side.

Did this answer your question (I'm afraid to even ask )?

It got a bit metaphysical.

The terrain and the forces are the same for all in the side. The deployment zones are the same for all. What is the "random factor" that allows people to use other than patent solutions to the tactical problems facing that one side if the placement of units is fixed ?

I would like a clear yes or no on the free placement. Or at least a definitive maybe.

[Treeburst155]

Very interesting, Tero. I would think that even if EVERY unit was locked, there would still be choices for players to make once the game starts. A completely locked setup wouldn't automatically dictate a single correct way to proceed. Lots would depend on how your opponent proceeds. Besides, I know the scenario I am testing for this tournament has no locked units. It does have fairly restricted setup zones however. I think it would be more accurate to describe the setups as "restricted", rather than locked up tight; although I've only seen one scenario. In that scenario you are "free" within the setup zones. Nothing is locked in place.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]</p>

[LtData]

Please add me. I am norwegian and should qualify

[Krazh]

As the seemingly only Icelander around, it´s to bad for me I didn´t make it... better luck next time

[Treeburst155]

Lt Data and Krazh,

There are still openings in the "Nordic Wannabee" tournament if you hurry. It is exactly the same tourney with the same scenarios. I started it because demand for this one was so high.

Treeburst155 out.

[The Commissar]

Aw crap. I posted in the Noridc Wanabe thread, but I missed this one (damn you, job!)

Now I guess I'm out

[Treeburst155]

But Commissar,

You are in the Nordic Wannabee tournament. It uses the same scenarios as this one, the same scoring system, everything is the same, just different people.

Treeburst155 out.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Very interesting, Tero. I would think that even if EVERY unit was locked, there would still be choices for players to make once the game starts. A completely locked setup wouldn't automatically dictate a single correct way to proceed.

Not necessarily. But the options would be severily limited. If the deployment zones were restricted or all units locked the start up would compel the player to take certain course of action, especially if the time frame was limited. An attacker might face X turns of lateral movement to reach a jump off point he would want to start advancing from. A defender would be denied dug in position in a location he might deem more appropriate for the mission.

If you give 1000 monkeys type writers and all of the typewriters had the same buttons disabled would these 1000 monkeys be more likely to make the same typos, even if they would hit them randomly ?

Lots would depend on how your opponent proceeds.

Agreed. What if the was two pairs, one of equal proficiency and one of unequal proficiency. Both pairs play the same scenario with the same missions. There is a clear kill zone near an objective and there are several avenues of advance to bypass it. Due to restricted deployment and timeframe the attackers are compelled to advance through the kill zone. Otherwise they face failing the mission. And they get duely decimated as the defender was blessed with a fortuitious deployment. So the attackers are preordained to suffer heavily and there only random qualifier would be Lady Luck and how the attackers units would evade being hit.

In that scenario you are "free" within the setup zones. Nothing is locked in place.

That usually works with historical scenarios. If the scenario has a purpose of measuring tactical proficiency and there is no or very little historical in the scenario then IMO more lattitude should be given in the deployment of troops.

Is this to be an algebra test or a philosophy paper ?

[Tero]

On the subject of tournament prize:

I do not want to be a wet blanket but are there any issues concerning the shipment that should be taken into account ? The Nordic countries are more than a bit anal when it comes to these things. Especially when there is alcohol involved.

IIRC the Finnish customs are not very flexible when it comes to taxation of goods if the shipment is labeled the wrong way. I heard some guy had to pay heavy taxes on a woollen sweater he received by post from Norway, only because there was some technicality issue in the labeling of the shipment.

[ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

Regarding the prize wines; WineCape ships wine throughout the world routinely. He would be aware of any problems, regulations, etc. and know how to deal with them. He told me once that the hard stuff presents more problems than wine. He will probably be along to address your concerns soon.

As for the setup zone discussion, you've got my wheels turning. If the combination of setup restrictions, time pressure, and mission allows for only one obviously best course of action then the scenario is flawed IMO. There should always be multiple plausible options. There may be only one truly good option, but there should be other tempting ways to proceed. This separates the good player from the mediocre who might not "see" the best course of action for what it is.

Locking and/or restricting setup is a good way to force players to deal with specific tactical problems. Units should be locked and setup zones defined with a purpose in mind. The arguments you raise are valid if the scenario is not thoughtfully designed. I don't think you have to worry about that in the case of Wild Bill and Nabla. The scenario I am testing was restricting to a certain extent, but I still have plenty of options.

Treeburst155 out.

[WineCape]

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

On the subject of tournament prize:

I do not want to be a wet blanket but are there any issues concerning the shipment that should be taken into account ? The Nordic countries are more than a bit anal when it comes to these things. Especially when there is alcohol involved.

IIRC the Finnish customs are not very flexible when it comes to taxation of goods if the shipment is labeled the wrong way. I heard some guy had to pay heavy taxes on a woollen sweater he received by post from Norway, only because there was some technicality issue in the labeling of the shipment.<hr></blockquote>

Valid concerns tero. Especially with Scandinavian/Nordic countries.

Postage to these counties could be a problem. Scanning my courier airfreight rates instead -- from TNT International -- I can circumvent any possible postage problems by sending the wine rather via a "EUROWINE" service. This is a door-to-door courier service, transit times 12-18 days. The beauty about this EUROWINE service is the wine freight includes all taxes/duties/VAT payable/charged by the destination countries' customs. See below regarding which Nordic countries allow the EUROWINE service…

EUROWINE will cost me 150% more in freight charges than sending the wine via snail postage, a charge I'm willing to carry though, given the Nordic countries possible "retentive" attitude to any product containing alcohol (after all, wine is only for grown-ups! )

Finland and Denmark allows the EUROWINE service, Norway allows it partially -- excluding duties though, which means that the receiver is still liable for duties/excise/taxes when he receives the goods -- and Sweden flatly refuses the all-duties-pre-paid option to their wine drinkers.

But Sweden does allow the sending of 6 bottles to the closest customs airport, duties-still-to-be-paid option. The question is, how far are the Swedish players from the custom airports (that TNT International fly to) to pick up their spoils of war?

Arlanda (ARN)

Gothenburg (GOT) and

Malmo (MMA)

A solution (if Swedish players live in the far reaches of their countries' fjords, nooks and crannies) is to simply post the package, mark it as a " XMAS gift" and send it off with a note that "this package has fallen of Father Christmas sleigh" -- not that the wine will get there before the fesative season anyway, as transit times will be 10-12 weeks!

So, as can be gathered by the above, I'm all for UberFinns winning this bloody Nordic Tourney. Go Fins go!

Regards,

Charl Theron

----------------------------

"Was I going to go bankrupt for a bottle of wine?"

-- Marvin R. Shanken, after bidding 100,000 British Pounds for a bottle of 1787 Lafite

inscribed with Thomas Jefferson’s initials in 1998.

[WineCape]

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

On the subject of tournament prize:

I do not want to be a wet blanket but are there any issues concerning the shipment that should be taken into account ? The Nordic countries are more than a bit anal when it comes to these things. Especially when there is alcohol involved.

IIRC the Finnish customs are not very flexible when it comes to taxation of goods if the shipment is labeled the wrong way. I heard some guy had to pay heavy taxes on a woollen sweater he received by post from Norway, only because there was some technicality issue in the labeling of the shipment.<hr></blockquote>

Valid concerns tero. Especially with Scandinavian/Nordic countries.

Postage to these counties could be a problem. Scanning my courier airfreight rates instead -- from TNT International -- I can circumvent any possible postage problems by sending the wine rather via a "EUROWINE" service. This is a door-to-door courier service, transit times 12-18 days. The beauty about this EUROWINE service is the wine freight includes all taxes/duties/VAT payable/charged by the destination countries' customs. See below regarding which Nordic countries allow the EUROWINE service…

EUROWINE will cost me 150% more in freight charges than sending the wine via snail postage, a charge I'm willing to carry though, given the Nordic countries possible "retentive" attitude to any product containing alcohol (after all, wine is only for grown-ups! )

Finland and Denmark allows the EUROWINE service, Norway allows it partially -- excluding duties though, which means that the receiver is still liable for duties/excise/taxes when he receives the goods -- and Sweden flatly refuses the all-duties-pre-paid option to their wine drinkers.

But Sweden does allow the sending of 6 bottles to the closest customs airport, duties-still-to-be-paid option. The question is, how far are the Swedish players from the custom airports (that TNT International fly to) to pick up their spoils of war?

Arlanda (ARN)

Gothenburg (GOT) and

Malmo (MMA)

A solution (if Swedish players live in the far reaches of their countries' fjords, nooks and crannies) is to simply post the package, mark it as a " XMAS gift" and send it off with a note that "this package has fallen of Father Christmas sleigh" -- not that the wine will get there before the fesative season anyway, as transit times will be 10-12 weeks!

So, as can be gathered by the above, I'm all for UberFinns winning this bloody Nordic Tourney. Go Fins go!

Regards,

Charl Theron

----------------------------

"Was I going to go bankrupt for a bottle of wine?"

-- Marvin R. Shanken, after bidding 100,000 British Pounds for a bottle of 1787 Lafite

inscribed with Thomas Jefferson’s initials in 1998.

[WineCape]

Damn double post, sorry gents!

[Juha Ahoniemi]

Don't worry WineCape. Us, the über-Finns, will make sure that You don´t have to worry about how to ship wine to any other country

[Nabla]

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

The terrain and the forces are the same for all in the side. The deployment zones are the same for all. What is the "random factor" that allows people to use other than patent solutions to the tactical problems facing that one side if the placement of units is fixed ?

<hr></blockquote>

Think about a chess game. Now there are configurations which are trivial (patent solutions apply) and there are configurations which are highly challenging even for the best.

But it is true that

1. unit placement is an important part of CM

2. it is possible to have fixed initial positions which alienate the player from the game ("I would never have placed the units this way")

I'll think about this. Nothing is carved on the stone yet. Would this correspond to a definite perhaps?

[Treeburst155]

I agree that if units are locked, the player should not find himself thinking, "I would never have set up this way". There has to be a good reason for the placement and locking of troops, and that reasoning should be presented in the briefings. If this is done there will be no player dissatisfaction with the fixed setup.

Treeburst155 out.

[Jarmo]

Mmm.. 6 bottles of wine, think about it.

Pour them all into a big bowl, add some strawberries to sweeten the taste, Sprite for the sparkles and some vodka for the kick. Then mix with crushed ice to keep it cool for hours.

Enough punch for a big party! Everybody's happy! ...except Winecape who's head just blew up!