Treeburst155

Redwolf, That will be fine. To all, How are we doing? Any updates on progress is greatly appreciated. I'm trying to get an idea of where we stand. Treeburst155 out.

Just a little bump. Oh, and you're welcome Warhammer. Thank you for finishing the tourney in a timely manner. Treeburst155 out.

I don't think C would have done better than A in that situation. By the same reasoning you could say that D did better than B; but how could that be when D's opponent scored more points than B's opponent? In any case, the A/B score would be adjusted to equal 100 points. Treeburst155 out. [ February 18, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

We will give EVERYONE a couple weeks to get familiar with CMBB before we launch the tourney. I will have quite a bit of tourney work to do once I get the game anyway, not to mention my own familiarization period. You will have plenty of time. Treeburst155 out.

A little leakage now and then is good for the community IMO. Everybody should get at least a taste of the Mutha Beautiful every once in awhile. It increases life expectancy by promoting healthy bowels. I can't remember where I read that or the explanation behind it just now. Maybe it was Dan Rather on the news a couple weeks ago. That's it, yeah, Dan Rather. EDIT: Murpes, disregard this entire thread. It's nothing but leakage from the Mutha Beautiful. Don't worry about "gamey" stuff. If "gamey stuff" concerns you you're already well on your way to a full understanding of the concept. All will become clear with little effort on your part. Treeburst155 out. [ February 17, 2002, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I think maybe people are starting to take mods and modders for granted. Wait until CMBB comes out and watch that change. Treeburst155 out.

Why Croda and Leeo, I am aghast that you are actually playing a game like that! The mere thought of such a game actually taking place is repulsive beyond comprehension. You gamey, gamey, GAMEY bastaleros!!...and then you come out here and flaunt your desecration of the best tactical simulation ever made. I'm.....I'm just beside myself with disgust. BTW, how's that KT doing against the Bofors? Those things have a good chance of taking the KT main gun out. Treeburst155 out. [ February 17, 2002, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Not only is Croda's phony AAR very funny, it is a fairly comprehensive list of all the unit purchases and tactics that COULD be considered gamey by your opponents. To that end it is a valuable document for QB players who wish to avoid cries of "GAMEY" from their opponents. Here's a general rule that will help too: If it works too well it's probably gamey. Treeburst155 out.

The CMBB tourney is going to be real tough on you guys who excelled in this one. Why? You'll all be in the same section!! The CMBB tourney will consist of four sections of six players. This cuts the number of games each must play down to five. It won't take so long this way which, I think, is a good idea. If your WBW Rumbling's ranking is between the 25th and 50th percentile you will be in Section 3, and so on. There will be no newbies. Any vacancies will be filled with reliables from the four previous WineCape tournaments. I will do something for the tourney newbies if SuperTed doesn't continue with his tourneys. Reliability is critical with this scoring system. Anyway, back to the fact all you uber commanders will be in the same section. Naturally, only one of you will move on to the finals. It will be VERY challenging for you guys that way, and entertaining for me. I'm looking forward to three months of the top dogs tearing into each other at Kursk and Stalingrad. Hehehe...it's gonna be good! The competition in the other sections should be fierce too since players' skill levels will be roughly equal. Then, when we get to the finals I will be cheering on the Section 4 winner to take the prize!! A side benefit to organizing the sections by apparent skill (based on the WB tourney) is that we add a ladder element to the WineCape tourneys. There will be recognition of prior performance just by what section you are in. A guy could place second in section four, but his tourney score may be high enough to move him into section two for the next tourney, an accomplishment by itself. BTW, I see no reason not to continue holding tourneys for this group one after another indefinitely. I suppose I should see how our sponsor, WineCape, feels about this first. WineCape, how big did you say your wine cellar is? New topic. Nabla has come up with a scheme for the playoffs that does not require ultra-balanced scenarios. You can read about it on the last page or two of the Nordic Championship thread. I'm tempted to do it for this tourney. I will talk it over with the finalists when they are known. Three games to go. Treeburst155 out. [ February 16, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Nabla, That's an excellent solution to the 2-way ties!! I'm sure your answer to the 3-way ties works too, but I'll have to admit I don't understand it at this point. When I get more time to digest it I'll figure it out. Treeburst155 out.

I never told you guys how I was going to handle the AARs. Each full credit AAR will be worth 2.86% of the highest player's score (before his AARs). Half credit AARs will be worth 1.43%. This means that seven full credit AARs will increase your final tourney score by an amount equal to 20% of the best score. In all future tourneys I manage this will be the AAR formula. Write a full credit AAR for every game and get 20% of the leader's score added to your own. If there are only five games in a tourney then each AAR would be worth 4% of the leaders' total and so forth. Treeburst155 out.

I never told you guys how I was going to handle the AARs. Each full credit AAR will be worth 2.86% of the highest player's score (before his AARs). Half credit AARs will be worth 1.43%. This means that seven full credit AARs will increase your final tourney score by an amount equal to 20% of the best score. In all future tourneys I manage this will be the AAR formula. Write a full credit AAR for every game and get 20% of the leader's score added to your own. If there are only five games in a tourney then each AAR would be worth 4% of the leaders' total and so forth. Treeburst155 out. [ February 15, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Good job, Uber General!! It's great to hear you're making good time. You don't have to rush, just keep moving along at a steady clip if possible. Treeburst155 out.

John, Since you have done battle on that map, and I have not, I am willing to take yours and Fuerte's word for it that it is an unbalanced battlefield. You guys would know better than I. It's just that from the perspective of someone who hasn't scrutinized the map (LOS etc.) through play it is not readily apparent that the map is grossly out of balance. Having said that there is a side I would definitely prefer on that map. Perhaps my ability to assess terrain situations is not all that good. That is entirely possible. I might not know an imbalanced map if I saw one. I'm no CM genius that's for sure. Ben, I will send you the map. I have no way of making it available for download. If anyone wants this map besides Ben just email me and I'll send it to you. Treeburst155 out.

GAMEY!!!! Treeburst155 out.

OK, I finally updated the standings to reflect the Kettler/Fuerte game. The final was Fuerte 38 and John 35. John, in light of the final score, which is highly indicative of a no-win situation for both sides (balanced), I fail to see what the imbalance is. You guys got a draw. The VLs were a no-mans land for both sides. Fuerte may have found some positions to keep you out of the VL area, but apparently you did the same to him too. Ya know what I mean? It's hard to make an argument for an imbalanced map when your game results actually show different. If Fuerte's situation was that much superior he should have won outright if one assumes equal skill levels. Are you saying you would have beaten Fuerte handily had you played the other side? How about a rematch, just for fun?! You two switch sides and do it again. Treeburst155 out.

Nabla has just informed me by email that the new scoring program can be exactly like the one in place for this tourney regarding outcomes if I use the right parameters. This means there will be no discarding of fractions since the new program handles the contested VL points automatically. Treeburst155 out.

I will reassess our progress on March 1st. At that time we will try to determine a reasonable deadline date. There are many games yet to be completed. It's safe to say you have at least three weeks, probably more. Treeburst155 ot.

I remember now. I like it! Perhaps I will offer the Wild Bill people a chance to do the playoffs like this. One thing though, there's a very good chance we will get a tie, don't you think, with four people whose scores will all fall in the 0-3 range. We might have to have a final one scenario showdown. We would need a balanced scenario for that one, and we know how elusive balance can be. Treeburst155 out.

CMBB has an overtime function? Geez, I better start catching up on things. Standings still not updated. I'll do it within twelve hours. Treeburst155 out.

I looked over the Kettler/Fuerte map and without actually playing a game on it I can't see how it presents any significant advantage to one side or the other. One side does get some higher ground so I would probably prefer that side; but the other side has plenty of cover. Plus, the high ground is covered in woods so good LOS would be limited to the treeline. I would either try to seize this almost centrally located treeline or hammer it with arty. I don't think the map is way out of balance. Then again, I've never played a game on it. Interesting is that only two games will be played on this map amongst the active players,the recently completed Kettler/Fuerte match and the recently begun Jarmo/Ari game. I'm not sure if any of the dropped out people played on the map in question since I've discarded those records. Treeburst155 out.

John wrote: "The map may've been a special creation, but I thought we were playing all the games on terrain mirrored maps. I was way too engrossed in my own tactical problems at the time to notice, but the map heavily favors the player on Fuerte's end, offering excellent observation, lots of cover for men and vehicles, multiple covered routes to approach the VLs, and superb fields of fire on offense and defense, including a lovely ridge for hulldown firing positions and another one which totally dominates both VLs." Hmmmm....this is interesting. I suppose in my zeal to not make the maps too symmetrical I may have gone overboard and caused a significant imbalance. I'll be looking that map over now. BTW, I will update the standings to reflect the Fuerte/Kettler results within 24 hours. EDIT: Hehe....the very important Jarmo/Ari match has just begun on this very map. I don't know who has the supposedly best side however. Now to look over the map. Treeburst155 out. [ February 12, 2002, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Scheer, Once I get the game results for your final game I will send you the results sheet IF you email me requesting it, otherwise I will forget by then. There are no other tourneys planned until after CMBB has been out for at least a few weeks. After that, there WILL be more. Treeburst155 out.

Good point, Nabla! I might have forgotten that when the time came. Man, that would have been a big screw-up too. Keep an eye on me, Nabla, so I don't destroy FOW unintentionally. Treeburst155 out.

Nabla, IIRC we are going with the 4 player/three scenario schedule for the playoffs? If so, we have to deal with the fact that each scenario will only be played two times. This won't give us a very reliable median, eh? I know we talked about this earlier, but how did we decide to handle it? I can't remember. :confused: Treeburst155 out.