Treeburst155

Here's my idea for a CM tournament. The tourney will consist of 10 players. Each player will play 9 games (one game against every other player). These games can be played simultaneously or in any order the players wish. Players will simply be provided with a list of all the participant's names and email addresses. It is up to each player to contact the other nine and start playing. As the games are completed the results are sent to me for tallying. I will award 4 points for a total victory, 3 for a major, 2 for a tactical, and 1 for a minor victory. Draws will give each player 1/2 a point and losses score nothing. Whoever has the highest point total when all players have finished their games wins a TROPHY provided by me. Rules: CAL rules (Combined Arms League at Tournament House) would be in effect so the games could be used on that ladder at TH. In effect you are just playing CAL ladder games in the normal manner except that I am tallying points for each player in the tourney and you don't have to be on that ladder to participate. You do have to use the CAL Rules however. The only work I have to do is send each player a list of tourney participants and record the game results as they come in. I could run several such tourneys simultaneously now that I think about it. The only problem would be providing all those trophies :eek: . Hey, Iron Duke, how much does a foot high trophy cost? Each game would be limited to a maximum 1,500 pts. and 25 turns so the games don't take too long. Players could use the new Endgame Randomizer if they wanted, up to a maximum of +/- 4 turns. If players wish to play smaller games (points and/or turns) that is fine. Players would have 90 days to finish all nine games. I think this is plenty of time (maybe too much). If you don't feel you can meet this deadline PLEASE do not sign up. You will be screwing up every other participant. If you don't make the deadline I will have to void all the games you completed so that everyone plays the same number of games allowing them equal chances to score points. This will not make the people who beat you very happy, especially if they wiped you out. The SERIOUS only need apply. I will not be participating as a player since I'm keeping score and such. The first ever "Combined Arms Tourney" is now open for registration. Only the first ten registrants will be accepted. If there is a great deal of interest I'll start more tourneys but I can't promise a trophy for any but the first one. I haven't gone trophy shopping lately to know for sure about more trophies. I WILL announce your victory on this forum and give the info to the websites who want that information. OK, post here if you want in on the tournament. If you're number eleven post anyway. If I get 20 then "Combined Arms Tourney 2" will be activated and so forth. Heck, if there's enough interest we could have a playoff tournament. REMEMBER: CAL Rules, 1,500 pts. max, 25 turns max (+/- 4 with randomizer). SERIOUS ONLY!!!! Think before you apply. Can you play nine games in 90 days? Let the signups begin! EDIT: Tom W has come up with a better scoring system! All your victory percentages from all your games will be added together. The highest total wins. Every single victory percentage point a player gets will count for him. Thanks Tom!! NOTE: This is a PBEM tournament. TCP/IP is fine if players agree but you must be willing to PBEM a player who cannot or will not do TCP/IP. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Redwolf, Good point about the variable degrees of victory. That does throw an added complication into things I hadn't thought about. If I have a rating of 1,500 and a newbie comes along to play me I am taking a great risk because I have no idea of his skill level. Is he new to CM or is he just new to the ladder? Whether he is very good or not the points I stand to gain will be less than the points I stand to lose for any given level of victory because of his low rating. I will admit that the multiple degrees of victory complicate this characteristic of the chess system in ways I can't quite predict since I'm not a statistician. I would also admit that the ladder newbie is PROBABLY not as skilled as the old timer on the ladder. This makes it a fairly safe bet for a win of some degree for the old timer when he takes on a ladder newbie. I'm not on the regular ladder but I've got lots of experience with the game. If I were to get on there and play the higher rated players they would indeed be taking a risk with their rating that they are unaware of. Not that I am THAT good, but I'm definitely not the newbie my 1000 pt. rating would imply. The best way is just to have a sort function for Win/Loss percentage I think. That way the guy who is 50 and 25 will be right up there with the guy who is 200 and 100. Another way to assess skill is to have tournaments where everybody in the tournament plays everybody else one time. All participants would start with zero points. A player would receive 1 point for a minor victory, 2 for a tactical, 3 for a major, and 4 for a total victory. Draws would score 1/2 pt. for each player and losses score nothing. Whoever has the highest total at the end of the tourney wins! This would assess skill level rather quickly between relatively small groups of players. New tournament groups could then randomly be created from the same player pool and the process repeated again and again all the while maintaining a running total of people's accumulated scores. Allowing newbies into the "tournament system" presents some real problems however. Everyone must have the same number of games played in order to reflect true skill levels. The rating system's problem is somewhat similar. Still a huge tournament of this sort would be fun. Treeburst155 out.

Redwolf brings up a very good point. A player who plays many games against humans will improve his skills faster than people who don't play so many games. This would make for a higher TCPer average score than the PBEMer average score. The TCPers play better from experience. The more games (against humans) you play, the more mistakes you make, the more you learn. This seems fair to me. The TCPer average rating will still achieve a static level eventually. I can't expect to compete with Tiger Woods on the golf course when he plays daily and I only play once per month. I'm not saying that TCPers won't play PBEMers. I'm saying that when their ratings get high enough (1400-1600) it would not be wise to play PBEMers (especially ladder newbies) IF rating is important to the TCPer. Right now there really isn't that much of a gap. Swamp has played 124 games with a rating of 1458. This is still an average rating. His rating hasn't hit his true skill level even yet. This is aggravated by the fact that his actual skill is probably still increasing. This goes to show how long it takes to obtain an accurate rating when everybody starts at 1,000. Still, the points Swamp risks by playing a 1,000 pt newbie and losing are significantly greater than the points he stands to gain by beating the newbie. If you were to take up with a chess club your rating would be fairly accurate within 20 games or so because you would be playing others who have played thousands of games. Their ratings are accurate. Your score adjustment after each game would therefore be more accurate. As it pertains to the TH scoring system even Swamp is still a newbie having ONLY played 124 games and all those against people whose ratings are not yet accurate. Everyone is a newbie! The TH scoring system is by far the best way to determine skill but it has the significant disadvantage of taking a VERY long time to work it's magic. This is mainly because everybody is a newbie to the scoring system. The system is adjusting ratings based on inaccurate ratings of both players. This WILL sort out eventually. With every game you play your score is adjusted to better reflect your skill level. The TH system is the best IMO inspite of the time it takes to work. In the meantime you have players' Win/Loss record and percentage. In the end, W/L percentage will not be as accurate as rating because the percentage doesn't take into consideration the skill of a player's opponents. Right now however it is the best way to judge skill while the rating system sorts out the players. If the player has 10 or more games played you can get a fairly accurate picture of how good they are. BTW, people like Swamp who win 77% of their games can expect to eventually be rated way up there, (3000?)provided of course they can maintain this percentage against people fairly close to themselves in rating. When I browse the TH ladder I take into consideration games played, Win/Loss record and percentage, and finally I look at rating because that is the least important stat at this point if you are trying to determine skill levels. Being at the top of the list impresses me little at this point. Having played 124 games and winning 77% DOES impress me. It would be nice to be able to sort the ladder in various ways rather than just have the highest rating at the top. It would also be nice to be able to filter out those with less than x number of games played. If a guy has played only 5 games I may not want him cluttering up my ladder sort as he hasn't played enough for me to be interested in his stats. So how about it Yobobo? If the guy who is 10 and 1 could sort the ladder based on W/L percentage and exclude people with few games played (3-0 for example) he would find himself at the top. This thread would not have happened. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I just deleted a huge post because it wasn't clear after rereading it. I'm going to try again. The chess rating system used by TH is the absolute best system for determining relative skill. However, it takes a VERY long time for a person's rating to accurately reflect his skill if playing PBEM only. TCP/IP players will hit that point MUCH sooner than PBEMers. Because the starting point of 1,000 is a fairly low rating most people's score will increase over the long haul. That's why the TCP/IP players are pulling ahead of the PBEMers. Their "long haul" is not as long. Eventually the TCP/IP players will quit going up as a group. Why? They will have reached the point where their true skill levels are reflected in their rating. At this point the TCPers average rating will be static. Their ratings will spread out and the men will be separated from the boys among the TCPers. Meanwhile the PBEMers will literally be years behind in their "long haul" to an accurate rating. Even the best PBEMer will be far behind the bulk of the TCPers because he hasn't played enough games to reflect his skill level yet. Eventually the PBEMers' average rating will catch up to the TCPers but it will take a VERY long time. The PBEMers will never catch the TCPers in the amount of games played but they will hit the point where their ratings are an accurate reflection of skill. When the PBEMers hit this point they will find themselves right up there with the TCPers even though the TCPers have played 10 times as many games. Something else I find interesting is that the TCPers will hit the point where it is undesireable to play a PBEMer. The gap in ratings will be too great. A loss would devastate the TCPer's score while a win against the PBEMer would help little. The TCPers will be forced to play each other only, if they're concerned about ratings. In effect there will be two different ladders going on and the gap will be obvious. You will know by the number of games played and higher ratings who is in the "TCP League" and who is not. This condition will persist for at least a year I would think, but the average PBEM rating will slowly catch up to the TCPers. In 3 years there will be no obvious delineation between a TCPer and a PBEMer. The average rating of both groups will be about the same. The scoring system really does not reward a player for simply playing the game. It just needs many games played in order to reflect the truth. The quicker you play these games the sooner the truth about your skill is revealed. Remember, the 1000 starting point is a low rating. Most peoples scores will increase over time. The PBEMer just needs a great deal more time than the TCPer. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

fytinghellfish, I'll bet you know every pixel on those TacOps maps. That's why I'm making a new map. I'm hoping I'll have better luck against the old pros. If it wasn't for CM I'd be playing TacOps right now. I played it all the time before CM came out. Now I just work on my map when I get burned out on CM. After the map is done I'll take a TacOps refresher course and then hunt for guys like you to PBEM my new map. Long live TacOps! Treeburst155 out.

Michael, Just run a small test. You'll find that a unit's morale quite often doesn't hold up very well when being fired on from multiple directions. The same amount of firepower coming from a single direction doesn't affect morale as much. It sounds like we're on the same wavelength regarding the squad packing issue. The packing up is one thing, but the guys in the back of the "square" should be shooting their own in the back of the head when the whole group tries to fire at a common enemy unit. It's similar to 5 guys trying to fire simultaneously out of the same small window. It can't be done. Of course, the player could pack the entire platoon at the front edge of the terrain square so nobody would have his muzzle in his buddy's ear. That would leave about 1/2 meter per man, literally shoulder to shoulder across the square. Anyhoo, squad packing just doesn't sit too well with me, but since nobody else really has a problem with it I'll pack 'em in when necessary. Treeburst155 out.

Maybe it's just changing signatures ( my gripes) that is broken. I want to remove one of my gripes. I've tried several times over two days now to do it. Now I've got a new gripe to put in my sig. I love to whine, especially after a bad PBEM turn or two. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-27-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

There certainly isn't any shortage of towed gun experts I see. Thanks fellas for a very informative thread. I mean that. Now reread Redwolf's last post 10 times. He's right you know. Fun and realism go out the window with the gun virus that has infected the community. :eek: Treeburst155 out. [ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

TacOps is never out of my scene. I'm working on a new map for the game right now. It's quite time consuming however so it will take awhile, but it will be very nice. TacOps isn't "out of the scene", it's keeping a low profile. Remember, that game has been around for many years. There are people playing it every day I'll bet. Treeburst155 out.

I think it's a mistake in the Stuart V info box. I haven't tested it yet but that would make the most sense to me. Treeburst155 out.

nt [ 05-27-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Cos, That's what I was going to say. Treeburst155 out.

Thanks Skipper! I understand now. I also agree that in CM open terrain may be too open in that there is virtually no cover in such terrain other than the occasional dip or bump. Treeburst155 out.

I noticed when comparing the two tanks that the Stuart V is described in the information box as having a slow ROF although it apparently uses the same gun as the American Stuart which is not listed with a slow ROF. Is there a mistake here? If so, which one is right? I could run a test but I don't have the time right now. I'm hoping somebody can answer this off the top of their head. Thanks!! Treeburst155 out.

Thanks for posting here, Jason. Matthew, I think you misunderstood what Jason is saying. He's saying closely packed defenders will all suffer from incoming fire directed at any one of the packed squads. This is true. You are talking about something very interesting but entirely different. Skipper, Forgive me for being dense but are you taking the position that a full platoon packed into a 20m x20m square is not realistic or are you agreeing with Jason? I'm not sure what I think now. I guess my problem has to do with the entire packed platoon being able to unleash all it's firepower at one specific unit without worrying about hitting their buddies packed in front of them. So far nobody seems to have any problem with this issue so I'm about ready to throw in the towel and accept that it isn't unrealistic to pack a platoon into one terrain square. Treeburst155 out

I read over and over about the high ROF of vehicles sporting 37mm guns. I guess nobody looks at the ROF of the Stuart V. Treeburst155 out.

Why would the AI absolutely have to shoot at Sharpshooters? I think it is far more likely that the AI will blow an ambush when it sees an AT team on a vehicle. Those AT teams are like magnets when it comes to enemy fire. I believe AT teams and sharpshooters are very close in price too. Treeburst155 out.

You just discovered a way to reduce the chances of successful infantry ambushes of your armor. Put troops on the tanks. The hiding grunts can't resist a juicy inf target hitching a ride. Better yet, put an AT team on the lead tank. The ambushing AI's trigger finger will really be itching then. Treeburst155

Suppose there are three possible positions of cover that have the desired LOS, but two of them are dangerous to get to or would expose your guys to some heavy firepower once there. The tendency is to pack the whole platoon into the one safe place which I contend is often too small to carry more than a squad. Edit: Are you saying you don't bunch up tight on open maps with little cover? We'll have to play a game sometime. You spread out in the open and I'll be sitting in tiny patches of trees with the firepower of a full platoon coming out of every patch. Your inf will run for the nearest patch of trees as soon as they come under fire. They don't like to fight in the open. Treeburst155 out. [ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The situation comes about when there is no other cover available that offers LOS to a unit or units you want to engage. It also occurs when defending VLs on relatively open maps. Its been my experience that the situation occurs quite frequently actually. Treeburst155 out.

I hope most others feel the same way about this. That would enable me to continue to pack squads without guilt when I'm fairly certain all threats to the tactic(mortars, arty, MGs) have been neutralized or have expended their ammo; a common situation towards the end of the game. Treeburst155 out.

But if you know there's no arty that can get you and have no intention of charging... Treeburst155 out.

I forgot that small buildings could have a second story. That goes a long way toward easing my building packing problem. The terrain square situation is still a biggie though IMO. Surely the grogs and simulationists out there must have some comments on this. I really think it takes advantage of the game engine to pack a platoon (and often more) into a single terrain square and proceed to fire on a single unit (or two) in the same direction with every one of the packed squads. A "cirle the wagons" situation where the troops are firing at enemies in many different directions seems OK to me but concentrated fire in one direction by all those guys packed in seems unrealistic. Treeburst155 out.

The Peng thread is now a tradition. It's really a PBEM club of sorts. They make maps for each other and generally enjoy the hell out of CM without whining about this or that game characteristic they feel is unrealistic. There are some very good players among the Pengers and I get the impression that most of them like to play CM as a tactical simulation rather than as a game. IOW, they tend not to be gamey. At least that's my impression of the Pengers having played a couple of them. Treeburst155 out.

Jason's posts are my favorites. Thanks for taking the time Jason. Check out the "Packing Squads Into One Terrain Square" thread I started. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Treeburst155 out.