Treeburst155

If you've got a few minutes go to web page . Email me if you would be interested in something like this. Thanks! [ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

That's one heckuva negotiated game there, John & Jarmo. It ought to be a real hoot. I may even use that setup procedure and force restrictions for future tournaments.

Why not just carry over fractions and make new units available as the remnants of a type hit full strength for that type? This allows players to spend their 200 points per game on fresh units (minus the rifle platoon HQs they would be forced to buy). By preserving fractions every man maintains value without resorting to purchasing partial squads out of the replacement points. There would just be a small number of men not available for the next fight. No more than 11 riflemen, 3 Platoon HQ members, 5 HMG crew members, 1 AT team member, 1 mortar team member, and so on. Problem/Solution: Arty spotters missing a man should be restored for free like higher lever HQs so they can be used in the next game. Fully eliminated spotters would of course need to be repurchased. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I agree with Shandorf. Would a real commander give the order? Would real soldiers obey the order if given? These are the two questions you have to ask yourself when giving an order. Your answers to yourself will stop you dead in your tracks quite often. You've just prevented yourself from giving a gamey order.

Tally all survivors in each unit type. Make as many whole units of each type as possible. Squads would be considered whole units for infantry. Distribute the rifle platoon HQ survivors (after building to full strength) among the rifle platoons as far as they will go. Force the player to buy any additional platoon leaders they need for platoons/partial platoons. All fractions for all unit types carry over until a whole unit of that type can be purchased. This method keeps players from fiddling with their remnants to such a degree that I can't figure out what they've done with them. Players will just use the updated inventory I send them after each game. The fractions I wasn't able to use will be listed for the player's information but I don't think he should be allowed to manipulate fractional units as it would be way too hard for me to figure out what he did with the fractions. If allowed, the player would actually be updating his own inventory. Not good IMO. BTW, crews can be traced to their weapons using their names so crews would be restored to their original weapon type when there were enough survivors of that type. I think all the problems concerning how to integrate survivors back into the inventory of a player are solved by the method above. Crew issues are solved because we can track by name. All HQ issues are solved since specific HQ types will be kept track of and made availabe as soon as there are enough survivors of that type of HQ. I do think Battalion and Company HQs should be restored to full strength if they are over 50% at the end. Less than that and they are a remnant waiting for more remnants of Battalion and/or company HQs. In short, every live man counts at the end except for company and battalion HQs who can lose a little bit for free. (Co HQs could lose 2 men for free, and Bat HQs could lose 3). I don't think this little freebie would result in suicide Battalion HQs. Lose 4 guys and you won't see your Bat HQ next game unless you buy another one. In fact, you would have to buy another one and have it suffer casualties if you ever wanted to recover that remnant. Treating Co and Ba HQs like the others won't work because the loss of a single man would relegate the HQ to "fractional remnant" status and people aren't going to buy a bunch of those units to provide more fractional remnants. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Wreck, you're talking about sub-dividing the squads' point value. This could get hairy. What percentage of the total squad cost would the LMG represent?

Wreck wrote: Regarding HQ and infantry replacements: as long as we have the small allotment of points for replacements, I see no reason to treat infantry specially. Infantry replacements should be priced by the man. If you have a squad with 8 riflemen dead, you can buy new men for ~2 points each, so, 16 points total and it is as good as new. LMGs cost a bit more of course. **End Quote I'm not sure I understand this. I think you're saying that remnants should be carried over until a whole new unit of that type can be purchased rather than rounding up. This would be fine but HQs present a problem. Regular platoon HQs need to be purchased with squads to be their leaders and they must be purchased at full strength. There could end up being squads without leaders I think. This gets somewhat involved and needs more thought. It would be much easier just to GIVE leaders to the regrouped remnant rifle platoons, and let all remnant rifle platoon and weapons platoon HQ survivors be tallied and turned into Weapons platoon leaders with no rounding, but fractions carried over. Battalion and Company COs would be restored if they were ABOVE 50%. If not they are eliminated and must be repurchased if the player desires. There could get to be an overabundance of weapons platoon leaders using the above method. Wreck wrote: If the games are going to be set up by hand, you can allow partial units (i.e. platoons missing squads, or squads missing men). If the games are going to be set up in the QB generator, then we will have to require complete platoons. But that is OK -- that's what the 4000 points of forces are for. A player should be allowed to combine partial squads if he likes, but it should not be required. **End Quote I don't believe you can delete individual men from a purchased squad. You can only delete squads from platoons. HQs must be purchased full strength also. EDIT: Easier way of dealing with HQs of all types. If they are above 50% they are restored to full strength. If not they must be purchased with replacement points. Keep in mind this would FORCE players to purchase rifle platoon HQs since you can't delete the leaders and leave his squads. No big deal IMO. I would update the inventory with leaders that would be free (>50% survived), and also add the necessary leaders for remnant reorganized platoons that are leaderless with the points being deducted from their replacement allotment. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

It should be noted that Tom above inspired this whole thing with an email he sent me. If it wasn't for him I wouldn't be pursuing this now. On TCP/IP: I think fairly liberal time limits should be allowed. With the element of force conservation to be dealt with there is lots to think about. Players could play the game over several sessions in two weeks.

Regarding "safe zones": There is nothing to stop a player from entering safe zones, especially since these zones would have cover on their borders. A player could theoretically move undetected along the border of the safe zone. I think a big enough back field will work for withdrawals. If the enemy can get at your guys in the backfield then your withdrawal might not be too successful. It sounds realistic to me. Crews: Crews will have to be kept track of as far as what type of weapon they crew in order to prevent what Jarmo brings up. Either that or crew remnants will have to be dealt with a different way than offering vanilla tanks. If leader names carry over to crews after knockout/abandonment they can be tracked. If not, some other solution to crew remnant needs to be found. TCP/IP only: This might be a very good idea. Players could be given two weeks to finish their games. The less time the tournamnent takes the less likely there would be drop outs due to real life which would mess up a tournament like this real bad IMO. Dropouts due to depleted forces are not a problem. The dropout would likely have suffered a 90-10 defeat anyway. I'm for TCP/IP only in this one.

Jarmo, mortar crews would be barred from consideration for new tanks. As long as no units actually leave the map I think I can tell what type of crews survived. This is addressed below in reply to Deke's post. Deke wrote: I would go so far as to say reduce the initial force to 4000 points and give everyone 500 points after each battle that can be used or accumulated for unit purchase. **End Quote I'm not sure going this far would encourage enough conservation. Players would get 2,000 points extra this way. With just 200 points in replacements/reinforcements players can plug (at least partially) gaps in their force makeup but they must really take care of their forces. There would be a constant weighing of victory points against force conservation. If a player takes a real bad beating in a couple games he will indeed be hurting in his last battle. I think all players will be able to field a respectable force for the first 4 battles, at LEAST the first three. There is a problem here however. If and when a player does run out of forces he will not be very motivated to play his last game or two. I would say in this case that a 90-10 victory be awarded to any player who has yet to face an opponent who drops out. Scores like that would probably result anyway. A sporting player would stick it out since his final opponent may be also be severely depleted. If I can only field 500 points for my last battle I still should play on since my opponent may be in the same boat. Deke wrote: Caveat to the tourney would be speed of play. Players will need/want to finish each battle before starting another. Perhaps a smaller scale would be better? **End Quote Perhaps each battle should consist of 1,000 points max units with all other things being scaled down accordingly. Turn limits could be set at 20 turns. My only problem with smaller battles is that a couple of lucky AT shots can win the game since only a few tanks would be in each battle. This is a somewhat minor concern however when compared to the time problem. After all, there is luck in combat. Deke wrote: Regarding fractional squads, perhaps it would be appropriate to take the total number of men left in squad types and then round up. This would represent men returned to duty or not really hurt in the battle. EG I start with a Coy of Allied 44 infantry (9x10) and at the end of the battle I have a total of 63 men left. I get back 7 full squads. **End Quote I like this idea. This helps the player who had a rough game a little bit with the rounding up. Deke wrote: How would you handle HQ’s? I would suggest allowing the player at his option to fill them out from the ranks of surviving squad members before the round up. This would represent “field Promotions”. *shrug* Slam me on this one, I’m shooting from the hip. **End Quote This is a real hairy one. All regular platoons and partial platoons should start a battle with HQs IMO. Perhaps I should just GIVE the players HQs for all their surviving platoons/partial platoons. Battalion, Company, and Weapons HQs would be reinstated IF they were at MORE than 50% strength at the end of the battle. If not, they are eliminated and the player has to buy these types of HQs out of his 200 point reserve allotment buy purchasing a unit and deleting all the troops. Deke wrote: Crews, isn’t it possible to identify a crews weapon by cross-referencing the leader name with the weapon after initial purchase? I don’t know, again just a thought. With the proper tracking system in place I think this could be done. If it works you could handle crews per squads above. **End Quote This is an interesting idea IF the crews retain the name of their leader after they have been relieved of their vehicle. I haven't noticed one way or the other on this. If true, this is the way to go. If not, then vanilla tanks for any crew is in order. Hopefully this wouldn't promote getting cheap crewed units knocked out to gain tanks. I don't know if this would be a worthwhile gamey strategy or not, but it may be. Mortar crews would have to be prevented from turning into tank crews.

Deke, Thanks! You've got my wheels turning again. I'll respond as soon as I get a chance. Kingfish, It could be real good, eh? Some responses to questions/comments above: Wreck wrote: For example, instead of 5000 points initially for 5 battles, you might have 4000 points initially with 200 points of buying after each battle. Or maybe 4500+100/battle. This would allow the players to reinforce any really weak spot that had appeared. **End Quote. I think 4,200 point "armies" with 200 pts. of reinforcements/replacements purchased before battles 2,3,4, and 5 is an excellent idea. Ben Galanti wrote: This sounds like a pretty cool idea. The only concern I have is would players be too timid? Since, if you and your opponent beat each other into a bloody pulp, it doesn't really help either of you, it just helps whoever you play down the road. **End Quote If both players are timid an early cease fire may result with the game ending in a draw. I don't really see this as a problem. A bit boring perhaps, but that's the breaks. A timid player against an aggressive player would suffer a crushing defeat as far as the points are concerned. Remember, in the end, points determine the winner; not who has the biggest surviving army for the final battle. There would be 4 large VLs on every map, CENTRALLY located to assure that timid play results in big points for an aggressive opponent. If saving your troops for the next battle is your overriding concern then you will probably suffer some early catastrophic defeats which will probably cost you the "crown". Players will have to weigh the situation carefully. I suppose it is possible ALL players would just go for draws in the early games but I think it unlikely. There's no sense in going into the last game with more than 1,300 points in your "army" since the max that can be fielded for any game is 1,500 and you have the 200 points of replacements. Wreck wrote: Another thing you should probably give some thought to is artillery. You do not want to have a "thin" zone at the back for fleeing troops because otherwise the opponent will be tempted to drop arty on them. Or else you have rules forbidding using artillery anywhere near the back of the board, which has its own problems. Instead, just make the maps extend considerably back from the setup zones, so there is plenty of room to flee to. **End Quote. This is a good idea. Rather than "safe zones", which are a problem since it would be impossible to prevent players from moving into their opponent's safe zones (or firing into them); there would just be plenty of map behind the setup zones with good cover so units have a good chance of withdrawing successfully. Any units exiting off the neutral sides would be considered eliminated for purposes of players' inventory. The_Capt wrote: Just thought of it but in a single round-robin, you could get into a situation where "I will leave more for the other guys" So a double round-robin where the first guy you play is the last guy you play may be an idea. It will add motivation to "Takin Care of Business" cause you have to fight again. ** End Quote Leaving more for the other guys will reduce your points at the end of the game. Also, your opponents could do the same to you. A double-round robin would involve too many games. As it is players will probably want to play one game at a time. Five games will take at least 5 months to finish. This is a problem I'm thinking about. Enoch wrote: The issue if players being allied or german not being able to play one another is the first that came to mind. You could get around that by having each player purchase an allied army and a german army. Then every one could play everyone else. ** End Quote. This does away with the team aspect and also would require an even number of games be played by each player. Even if we went to six games (3 from each side per player) players would only have to think ahead to two more battles. This may not be a bad thing, but I think having to plan ahead for 5 battles would be more challenging. I think we can find enough players that are willing to play one side or the other exclusively.

Thanks, guys! Lots of good stuff here for me to think about. This is what I was hoping for. My wheels are really spinning now.

Very interesting idea, CDIC, having the players pick an army but not be able to use it. I don't think they would go for it though. I'd probably pick a really crummy army since chances are, somebody else would have to use it. LOL!! I was thinking of supplying generic armies picked by me consisting of a wide range of unit types. Every player would start with the same exact army, but it would be big enough and diverse enough that players still wouldn't know what they would be facing in any given battle. They wouldn't know what their opponent lost in his previous battles or what he chose to field in his battle against them. One generic army for each side would really add to the balance. It would be easier on me too I think. There is a problem I just thought of. Half the players would have to be Allied for ALL their games, the other half the Germans for ALL the games. This means players can't play everybody else. You could have a winning side and a winning player! Each of the three Allied players plays every German player once. This would give the tourney a total of nine games. We would have a champion player AND a winning side by totaling all the players' points on each side. It would be better to have 5 players on each side so that players have to conserve their forces through five games. We would have 10 people involved, but each would only have to play five games. The team aspect of it is a new twist that could be fun (necessary too).

You know, George III, that might just work. It would sure save a lot of time too. I've never messed with creating an operation before. Like you said, some experiments need to be done.

"1. How to deal with casualties in squads. To what extent would a squad be restored if one or more members become casualties? Would you return all surviving squads to full strength (even if down to one man), or would you just condense the number of surviving infantry into full squads? What would be done with any remaining fraction? What about casualties among multiple types of squads? " I think I would have to count the suvivors on the final screen rather than the dead. I would tally up all the survivors for the different types of units and make whole fresh units available to the player for his next battle. Fractions would be carried over and used when possible down the road. For the last battle I would take the fractions and do the best I could to represent them for the final battle. I think it would only be manageable if players did not actually exit anyone off the map. The "safe zone" behind their setup zone and along the sides perhaps would be the way to go. The player would get a fresh updated inventory of his "army" after each battle. There would be no honor system involved as long as the players did not exit the map with anybody (safe zone). It would be tedious, time consuming work, but I think it would be doable. Players might have to wait a few days to get their updated inventory is all. I would have the players' inventory. I would place his chosen units from that inventory on the map and move them to active status on his inventory. At the end I would see what remains of his "active" units, make new units available to him from his survivors and keep track of fractions. It would be work but I really think it would be doable. I agree that the player should be limited to only 5,000 points for five battles. Really make him conserve!

Players would most definitely buy their armies blind at the beginning. They would then get their map for their first battle and choose from their inventory units that would best suit that map (up to 1,500 pts.). At the end all their casualties will be stricken from their inventory. Any survivors could fight in the next battle if they wanted since they would still be in the player's inventory. I would give every four surviving crewmen a vanilla Sherman or Mark IV. It's impossible to keep track of what type of vehicle a crew once manned. I would probably lump gun crews in with the vehicle crews. The player would know that every four surviving crewmembers results in a new Regular Sherman or a Mark IV. The crewmen could be from any unit that produces a crew when the weapon is destroyed or abandoned. Re-using abandoned vehicles would help the owner (if it was an uber tank) but his opponent would not have to finish it off because he won't play that person again. He would just be helping the next guy by blasting the tank until it was destroyed. So, to keep it as simple as possible I would just award vanilla tanks for every 4 crewmembers exited. Maybe I'll have to change that to five or six crewmembers. I'll have to play around and see what seems best.

I'd like some feedback on a new tournament idea if anyone feels inclined. A six player round robin tournament. Everybody plays everyone else one time. Nobody sees the same map twice. Custom maps with forces purchased in the editor. Points accumulate from game to game and the highest total wins. Now here's the new element. Players must purchase ALL their forces for the entire tourney before the tournament begins. You buy your "army" so to speak. You are allowed to field a maximum of 1,500 points per battle out of your "army" of say, 6000 points (5 battles x 1,200). At the end of each game I will look at the AAR screen and remove your casualties from your available "army". This new, reduced inventory of units is what you have to choose from for your next battle. If a player does not think ahead to future battles he could wind up going into his last battle with a Kubelwagen and a green squad. LOL!! Players would not surrender since captured troops are gone forever. Players would try hard to withdraw if things were going poorly. Players would attempt to conserve their units. I could award new vehicles and guns to surviving crews. For example, for every 4 tank crew survivors you get a new tank for your army. Same thing with guns. Fraction would be held over for next time. It would be time consuming to comb over the final map taking inventory of all the casualties, but it would be doable I think. What happens to a crew who exits the map? I may have no record of how many survived in that case. I'll have to experiment. Perhaps I could have a row or two of "safe" squares behind the setup zones that would be considered "off map" so the player wouldn't really have to exit anybody. This safe zone could be well hidden from LOS of the rest of the battle field using slopes and trees to keep the TAC AI from interfering I think. So does anybody have an opinion on this. Is there any major problems you can think of? Why wouldn't this work?

Hehehe.....

I wouldn't play a QB without the BER. It really adds to the game. It can drive you nuts too, when you're trying to hold VLs. What it does is cause the flag rushes to occur earlier. How early depends on how you set the BER. I like +/- 4 turns. The flags still tend to get rushed, but they then have to be held. I've not used the BER for canned scenarios, although there are some I have played where I wish I had used it. Try it. You'll like it!!

This is getting a little too far from the top. Has anybody tried the new "Byte Battles" from Der Kessel?

Yes, KiwiJoe is offensive. Somebody needs to beat him.

Aaah, that's right John. Your application has not yet been sent to WineCape as it was my prototype and stored in a different folder. I shall forward it immediately.

Shandorf, Your average is up because of the withdrawals. Note also that only SuperTed and Bill H have withdrawn at this point. Yes, I will still be making sure force purchase agreements are kept. Just be sure to keep negotiation email in case of a dispute. There should be very few disputes of that type since I am checking for compliance with agreements as I re-purchase on the final map. Of course, I could make a mistake; especially considering my recent record. Checklist for new game negotiations: 1) Purchase restrictions 2) Force deletion issue 3) Gamey play If you are vague in your agreements on these things don't be surprised when you are surprised. Keep in mind also that the International Court of Tourney Disputes will not hear cases involving gamey tactics or force deletions.

Here's the updated standings taking into account the two confirmed withdrawals. Don't be surprised if we lose a few more. This has been hard on everybody so you can't blame people for not wanting to mess with this tourney anymore. I take full responsibility for the chaos. I made several mistakes back to back in quick succession. On the bright side, I learned from them. The standings: Claymore........99...1...99.00 Fionn..........393...5...78.60 CapDog..........76...1...76.00 Jshandorf......144...2...72.00 Moon............60...1...60.00 Texas Toast....235...4...58.75 M. Dorosh......135...3...45.00 Jarmo...........41...1...41.00 John Kettler....44...2...22.00 MickOZ..........64...3...21.33 Berlichtingen...78...5...15.60 Ari Maenpaa......0...0...0.00 Fuerte...........0...0...0.00 Robert Hall......0...0...0.00 Sten Friberg.....0...0...0.00 Ben Galanti......0...0...0.00 Mr. Spkr.........0...0...0.00 Other news: Berli and MickOZ are arranging to do combat as we speak for the first offering of the $50 bonus prize. If either one manages 75 points they win. I predict a draw. The following games have been initiated but I'm still waiting for one or both players' purchases. These are the games I mentioned in the last thread that I accidentally deleted. I have since found a backup of that folder. I'm good about backing up. This is necessary since I'm also delete happy. If your name is capitalized below I need purchases from you. Fuerte/FIONN, ROB HALL/Texas Toast, Claymore/FIONN

Claymore, All games in progress or completed still count EXCEPT those games involving players that withdraw. Any games with those people that are in progress will not count for the tournament. Any games completed by withdrawn participants will be wiped from the books and their opponents scores adjusted accordingly. Right now only SuperTed and Bill H have bowed out. I think CapDog is IN based on his post above; however recent email says he's a maybe. I've not been able to get in touch with him yet for further clarification. Fuerte, I will post updated standings reflecting the withdrawal of Bill H and SuperTed within the hour. CapDog results will be included. [ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]