Treeburst155

Attention TOURNEY III, Section 4! The replacement for "f1shlips" has been found. I don't have time right now to look up, gather, and send him the passwords and files he needs right now. I will have him in action within 24 hours, and you'll get an updated contact list too. Treeburst155 out.

I see what you are saying, Redwolf. The assumption then is that the Titans are so good that they need to play scenarios that are as balanced as possible if there is no mirroring. This because they will most likely be able to exploit any significant advantage in a disproportionate manner,regardless of their opponent's skill, thereby screwing the unfortunate opponent who plays the significantly weaker side. This logic is really hard for me to grasp. It seems "fuzzy" to me. I'm just not sure it's true I guess. Like Wreck says, even if it is true, is it a big enough issue to overcome the luck inherent in any CM game? Treeburst155 out. [ June 10, 2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Yes, this is out of hand, but it's very interesting IMO. Redwolf, This is the same argument Fionn is using. It is somewhat foggy to me. I just can't quite grasp it. If true, then the same would apply to all scenarios since all are out of balance IMO. The only good answer is mirrored battles. Split into two sections of four, the number of games will not get out of hand. Broken, Your scoring proposal is interesting. I must think about it. You may be onto something there. Treeburst155 out.

The fundamental assumption behind Fionn's arguments, I think, is that balanced scenarios exist. This I disagree with. Only by mirroring battles can you achieve true balance. This means some form of comparison between players who play the same side in a battle must take place to determine relative skill if mirrored battles are not used. Why not split into two groups of four. Each player plays a mirrored battle against three others (six games). We would then have a mirrored QB playoff between the section winners. The inequity here is simply the fact that one section may be stronger than another section. All else is as fair as can be. We can even use raw CM point totals. Treeburst155 out. [ June 10, 2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Redwolf, Modifying the curve for this tourney would be a very good idea IF we were using the full Nabla system. We are using the playoff system that does not require an accurate median (because we won't have one). How is a player screwed by an unbalanced scenario? The Nabla system is specifically designed to address that issue. An unbalanced game is simply another test of CM skills. Treeburst155 out. [ June 10, 2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Fionn, Out of curiosity, why should the high average score win, especially when that average could have been attained by playing the weakest player in the scenario that is the most unbalanced? Keep in mind, I'm going on the assumption that ALL scenarios are unbalanced. Treeburst155 out.

This may be true, but players would still meet "the best" in a different situation than others would. Also, are you sure this can work out? That's a lot of parameters for the scheduling. The schedule would have to be figured out manually. It might be quite a puzzle. I'd have to play with it awhile to see how difficult it is. ________________________________________________ In order to keep Fionn interested, and to level the playing field to the extreme why don't we just go with QBs. Each player choosing ALL the parameters for one scenario as I mentioned earlier. To this we will apply the Integer Nabla scoring. Why? Because NO scenario is balanced IMO. Simply tallying points is the worst way to score. This applies even if we manage to equalize attack/defend/sides because players will attack and defend and play different sides in different scenarios. Treeburst155 out.

Redwolf, Feel free to contribute. You are a scoring expert. Your opinions on issues such as being discussed here carry lots of weight with me. If we go mirrored QBs I could always set some rather harsh restrictions on towed guns. Treeburst155 out.

Fionn, The highest average score may not win. To significantly reduce this possibility the full Nabla System with a median would be required. I understand what you are saying now. This fact is what makes the Integer Nabla highly competitive. Beating somebody 95-5 will not generate a big lead. You would still have to play very will in the other games. The big victory offers no padding. Note that the converse is also true. A big loss will not knock you out of the running. Treeburst155 out. [ June 10, 2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

"In Defense Of The Nabla System" by Wreck. I love it!! It is my belief there is absolutely no such thing as an even battle. Even if there was, there would be no practical way to prove it's existence. Therefore, a scenario is a scenario, no matter if it is human designed or a QB. They are all unbalanced to one degree or another by virtue of the fact that the maps are not symmetrical and the forces are different. By using QBs and scenarios we are testing a wider range of CM skills than if we used just one or the other type of battle. Scheduling of matches cannot be perfect. Here are the imperfections: 1) all players will not be compared to every other player the same number of times. By compared, I mean play the same side of a given scenario. 2) attack/defend duties will not be split evenly for all players 3) side distribution will not be even for all players. The program does a brute force crunch to minimize these issues, but there is no perfect solution to them. You can only have so many scheduling criteria and expect it all to work out. Most important is that each player play each scenario one time, and that each player play every other player one time. These two things make the rest impossible to achieve. They can be minimized however. No two contests against "the best" will be exactly the same regardless of the scenarios used. Somebody could always feel they ran up against "the best" in a less than optimal situation. The absolute fairest way, but less fun for players IMO, is to do mirrored QBs with players getting the map beforehand to study. This is so both players can get familiar with both sides of the map before either game begins. Regarding degrees of victory and how it falls into the Nabla system. To get points closely related to your relative performance we would have to use the regular Nabla system, which requires an accurate median. The Integer Nabla is more competitive, but less of a reflection of your actual performance relative to the others who played the same side of the scenario you did. For this reason, it answers Fionn's concerns. You can score no worse than three points less than "the best" for a given scenario. It does not matter how much "the best" can capitalize on his advantage in a highly unbalanced scenario. You can score no less than zero. This is what everyone else will score against "the best" too, even if their degree of loss is less than yours due to a more balanced scenario. Treeburst155 out. [ June 10, 2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Attention TOURNEY III, Section 4! We've had a casualty. "flshlips" has withdrawn from the tourney. I am seeking out a replacement right now. You will receive an updated contact list when I find the replacement. You can start the games over, or not. The only requirement is that BOTH players must agree to start from scratch before that may be done. _______________________________________________ GeneralSV, I don't think any of your opponents have heard from you in the four days the files have been out. You need to at least make contact with them. They and I need to know if you're still playing. _______________________________________________ Cogust, Your opponents need to hear from you too. _______________________________________________ Treeburst155 out. [ June 10, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Good post, Wreck. I'm going to see if I can say the same thing in a different way. Suppose one player is "the best". "The best" will always score 3 points no matter which side he plays of any scenario. If he scores only two points then he is not "the best". It does not matter which scenario/side you find yourself playing when you meet "the best". He will get 3 points for that scenario, even if he's playing the weak side of a scenario. You will get 0 points simply because he will get three. Keep in mind if you manage to score one point in your game against "the best", then that means two people did better than "the best" because two players will get three points for each scenario. It really doesn't matter what situation you find yourself in when you meet "the best". When you're playing "the best" you automatically become "the worst" for that scenario because "the best" will always create "the worst". Everybody meets "the best" one time. Everybody pays the price of that meeting, regardless of the meeting place. Treeburst155 out. [ June 10, 2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Hmmm....that makes two of you. I must say I don't understand the reasoning at all. I think you guys underestimate or don't fully understand the Nabla system. However, I'm willing to go with seven QB type battles. I think each participant should lay out detailed parameters for one battle by stepping through every choice available when creating a QB. Each person should also pick a force purchase ruleset to go with his QB. Once this is done I will draw one of the scenarios (creator's name) out of a hat and it will be discarded. The rest will be built by me, using the QB parameters each player chose. I will doctor up the map a little. Setup zones and map size will match what would be created by a QB. This will give us our scenarios, and every player but one will get to have his ideal game in the tourney. Sound good? If so, start clicking through the QB setup screens and post the parameters you want for "your" QB here. Don't forget to choose a ruleset too. Treeburst155 out.

Uh oh, I goofed copying Boris's email address. I'll send out an update to the section. Sorry guys. Treeburst155 out.

Ari uses my terrain mod?! That makes three of us using it ona regular basis that I know of. It really is good for playing from view 4. It's not often I have to drop down any lower. I went back to an eye candy mod a few months ago, and I could hardly play the game! I found myself scurrying about the map in the low views all the time. I really think my "war room" mod gives a slight advantage to those using it. John, Just do the best you can against Ari. You'll either win or learn. I never lose. I just learn when my opponent wins. Treeburst155 out.

I'm with you, Broken, on just about everything on your list, except I have nothing against AT mines. Treeburst155 out.

LOS scouting should be fairly limited for the players. You can't move units beyond your setup zones unless they are already outside them. Even if they are, you can only move them inside the setup zones. IOW, players cannot do a very thorough LOS checking. Now, if you were to let people download the map they could analyze the hell out of LOS. One might as well give them a point to point LOS tool. I told SuperTed you wanted to post some screenshots, but also that it was problematic. He expressed interest in doing it. I haven't heard from him since however. John, You can make the Invitational low priority. Ari's out playing in the sun anyway. When the cold winds blow he will come back inside. That will be a few months yet. You are not the only one holding up the Invitational anyway. Treeburst155 out. [ June 09, 2002, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

OK, this is great. Everybody post your likes and dislikes like we've been doing. I will then lay out a detailed proposal concerning the three "force pick" games. If it seems unpopular I'll throw out another plan, and so on. Eventually we'll come up with something everybody can live with. Treeburst155 out.

FrankV, Check your email. We have a slot for you. ______________________________________________ My backup list is now down to one guy who won't be available for several more weeks. If you want to be on the backup list, email me. You should probably read the last half of page one of this thread before you sign up. Look for a post entitled "How it Works" by Treeburst155. This is the first of three consecutive posts that should give you all the info you need about the tourney. Thanks!! Treeburst155 out.

Attention TOURNEY III, Section 2! Hoopenfaust's command post has been destroyed! (He's dropping out). I'm on a replacement hunt now. Treeburst155 out.

Fionn, That's just it. Nobody has hashed out the nitty gritty little details yet. That's what we're doing now. Treeburst155 out.

OK, we're on the same page here. I like the idea of keeping these things basically as QBs. I would auto generate maps in the editor, and clean them up a bit; but not so much as to effectively change the terrain parameters I started with. Players would know all the parameters I used; also weather, ground conditions and type of battle (Allied attack, etc), before they pick forces for the battle. They would not see the actual map. They could generate their own to get a feel for the map. Attack scenarios would be 3:2 force ratio. How about map size and defender points? How big do we want these battles? Hmmmm....setup zones. I would have to create the setup zones. I guess I could just do it exactly like a QB would for the type of scenario. On unit selection rules. I'm all for a set of rules if you guys can agree on them. We could use different purchase rules for different scenarios which would be followed by all, for the reasons Broken mentioned. We should probably establish the different map parameters before we assign a set of purchase rules to a map. We don't want heavy trees and mud to be some kind of armor engagement (or do we? ). Treeburst155 out.

All files are out!! Hopefully I didn't mess up too bad. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. Have fun, guys! Treeburst155 out.

On zipping turns, all I know is that by doing so file problems between Mac and PC tend to go away. The trial version of Winzip will zip a file. Simply right click on the PBEM file and you'll see a WinZip menu item for zipping. It will say something like "add to <PBEM filename>.zip. Clicking on this will create a zipped turn file. I still have two scenarios to pass out. I didn't get a big enough chunk of time today to take on that project. I'm going to start sending again as soon as I get done checking the forum. Treeburst155 out.

I really can't think of a better scoring system than the integer Nabla discussed above for this particular tourney. If there are no strident objections we will go with it. I also think the proportional flag-split is the way to go since at least one of the Titan's prefers it. It is really just a matter of preference. Because of the scoring, the "pick your own" scenarios do need to be similar from player to player. The more similar the better IMO. I think these scenarios should be exactly the same EXCEPT for the forces, which will be chosen by the players. IOW, Map A would always be an Allied attack from west to east with the same parameters, etc.. Only the forces are different. Hmmm....what about attacker/defender unit point ratio? I am unfamiliar with these ratios. Is it 1.5:1 for an attack? Players could decide on any point ratio they want for these battles so long as they are the same for all, naturally. I would like to give players as much freedom as we can with the last three battles; but the more that is left up to the players, the more the integrity of the Nabla system is undermined. What I'm saying here is the scenarios should be entirely human designed by a non-player except that no forces are chosen. These .cmbs would be the ones used by me to place the players' forces. Do the Titans want to choose forces blind? Treeburst155 out.