Nabla

Hello everyone! A short update. The finals will probably start next week. I planned to get all the scenarios for the finals ready this week, but I'm just having too much fun playtesting them. For example, yesterday, while playing x against the AI, I couldn't believe it when a y, right out of the blue, z both my u and v, even after w! As you've probably noticed, a new thread has been started in the scenario forum about the first round scenarios. I've just posted a message in that thread, containing a link via which you can download my first round scenarios (The Aftermath, Gotta Get Up, Economy of Forces).

Hello everyone! First, congratulations to the winners. The finals will probably start next week. I planned to get all the scenarios for the finals ready this week, but I'm just having too much fun playtesting them. For example, yesterday, while playing x against the AI, I couldn't believe it when a y, right out of the blue, z both my u and v, even after w! At this point I'd like to thank WBW for his first round scenarios, and all first round participants. I hope you had fun. As you've probably noticed, a new thread has been started in the scenario forum about the first round scenarios. I've just posted a message in that thread, containing a link via which you can download my first round scenarios (The Aftermath, Gotta Get Up, Economy of Forces).

Hello everyone! Since both tournaments are now over, first round scenarios can be published. So here they are: NWT and NCT first round scenarios Have fun!

I hate to admit it, but every once in a while (like once in a year) I get these laughter attacks. Just can't stop laughing, even if I wanted to. This one hit the spot. Capt, keep them coming. Reading you loud and clear.

Medians. That's just a typo made when the output of the scoring program was copied (to produce a shorter message). The scoring program output is actually [ Economy_Of_Force ] player [ tero ], difference from median [ -7.5 ] score [ -5.936 ] [ Economy_Of_Force ] player [ Torbhen ] difference from median [ 7.5 ] score [ 5.936 ] The score is adjusted immediately to add up to 100 before any other computations: [ Economy_Of_Force ], read result [ tero 66 Torbhen 26 ]. [ Economy_Of_Force ], neutral points, adjusted result [ tero 70 Torbhen 30 ]. [Edited typo. Really, first wrote typo as type above. ] [ April 17, 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

Congratulations for the finalists! You can start your mental preparations for the finals. Two of the scenarios for the finals will come from me, and one from TB155. One of my scenarios is complete and has been reviewed by TB155, for the second one I need to write the briefings, do some playtesting and have it reviewed by TB155. If I remember correctly, TB155's scenario is ready, and I will review it shortly before the finals (TB: could you send the scenario to me). I assume that all this will take a couple of days, so the finals will start next week. We'll discuss the details of the scenarios later on once the first round of the Nordic Wannabe Tournament is over. At this point I'd like to thank WBW for providing two nasty scenarios for the first round, and all the players who boldly went where no man has gone before, and participated in the first round of this worlds first unbalanced CM tournament. I hope you had a lot of fun. [ April 14, 2002, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

Well, that means that I've got to start polishing my second scenario for the finals. Glad to see that the first round is over. Interesting medians. We can't start discussing the scenarios, though, until the Nordic Wannabe tourney has finished the first round. What's their status, TB155?

Hello everyone! First the bad news: the finals will definitely not start before 8.4. I've been way too busy to be able to complete and test my second scenario for the finals. I'm going on holiday next Saturday and will return 6.4., and will finish off the second scenario after my return. Then the good news. The thing I've been busy with concerns CM (and is especially close to the hearts of Nordic people), and is something that you will hopefully have a chance to enjoy during the next couple of years. So my time has been well spent. [ March 26, 2002, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

Hello everyone! First the bad news: the finals will definitely not start before 8.4. I've been way too busy to be able to complete and test my second scenario for the finals. I'm going on holiday next Saturday and will return 6.4., and will finish off the second scenario after my return. Then the good news. The thing I've been busy with concerns CM (and is especially close to the hearts of Nordic people), and is something that you will hopefully have a chance to enjoy during the next couple of years. So my time has been well spent. [ March 26, 2002, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

I'd be interested to see the balanced scores of the players from each game. Did the winners score better than others consistently? Well, it's obvious that at least one did. But overall, the end result of the first round seems to be a well separated set of four finalists.

Could that be a power supply problem? I suggest that you post a message to the Tech Support forum if you haven't done that already. From what I've understood they've got some real gurus lurking around there.

Good morning. I haven't actually forgotten it, but it is a good thing that you reminded me. We have to decide it upfront, before the tourney(s) end. I will study your proposal today and send you my response via email.

Don't forget the other tourney - they have to be done with a scenario as well before we can start the discussion here. Glad to hear that things are proceeding nicely. What's the estimated end of the first round now?

Yes, please. The (Possibly) Unbalanced Tournament Scoring System

Just out of curiosity - in how many of these 4 games did you think that the tactical problems were interesting? To put it another way, how many tactically boring games did you play?

What are the options? 1. Wait. 2. Rent a laptop for a weekend and TCP/IP all the games to the end. 3. You send your password(s) to us, we arrange a ceasefire with your opponents. Is this feasible? 4. You surrender (a bad idea). 5. Play at work. Other options?

I don't think there are many greatly unbalanced scenarios in NWT. Perhaps you inherited some bad positions when you came in as a recruitment in the middle of the tournament? But I do understand what you're saying: if you get your a** kicked left and right it's not so much fun. I don't know how difficult it is to get the feeling that what counts is how well you do, given the situation and the forces you have. If you've got the bad hand you're not expected to win. In the future, if I will still be designing scenarios for unbalanced tournaments, some of my scenarios will always be unbalanced. I will keep the players on their toes, and the best way to do this is to keep the threat real. This can be painful for the players, but I think that real commanders were pretty jumpy too, and frustrated when their troops were killed in large numbers. [ March 05, 2002, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

Thank you. I'll send you some email about dangerous design pitfalls in designing (possibly) unbalanced scenarios.

Ok, we'll use this procedure. In due time, my friend, in due time... Seriously, I've had three article deadlines at work, and after today I've met them all. So serious - and devious - planning starts this evening.

A short intermediate thanks to all those who have written and sent AARs so far. Reading them is both very entertaining and educational. After the tourney is over I will put some of the best AARs available for downloads on the net. If you want to spice up your text a few nice screenshots make a big difference. If it is possible for you, please use PDF since it is can be read on a computer running any operating system. (If some of the best AARs are not PDF then I will do the conversion myself before I make them available for download.)

A short intermediate thanks to all those who have written and sent AARs so far. Reading them is both very entertaining and educational. After the tourney is over I will put some of the best AARs available for downloads on the net. If you want to spice up your text a few nice screenshots make a big difference. If it is possible for you, please use PDF since it is can be read on a computer running any operating system. (If some of the best AARs are not PDF then I will do the conversion myself before I make them available for download.) [ February 16, 2002, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

Here's a suggestion for handling ties. First use the result of the match between the players under consideration as a deciding factor. That is, if players A and B have a tie, then see how the battle in which A and B have played on the same side has ended. The player who has done better wins. This is still not a foolproof way because we might for example have a tie between three players A-C. The previous rule would not help if A has won B, B has won C and C has won A (in the sense that one has done better when playing on the same side of the same scenario). In such a case I suggest that we sum up the raw point differences of these games. That is, if for example the CM score differences are A-B +2, B-C +10, C-A +4, we get A -2, B +8, C -6, and B is the winner. [ February 15, 2002, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

Winners of each section will continue to the second round. They will play three scenarios, one against each opponent. For the scoring used in the final round see my reply to Treeburst155 above. We haven't yet decided how possible ties (when victories are summed up) are handled.

The newest version of the program splits contested points automatically - there's no need to do the division by hand (you have the latest version, don't you). This solves the problem. However, if you for some reason want to split the scores by hand that shouldn't be a problem either. At least in my Linux version floating point numbers are accepted as input. I have to test it under Windows one day. Anyhow, there should be no need for such thing since the program takes care of splitting points automatically. EDIT: If you are wondering what the program is doing then remember to use the -d flag for diagnostic output. [ February 13, 2002, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

I think we're going to use the nasty competitive version: one point for the player who gets a better CM score than the other guy who's playing the same side. That is, if we have players A-D, and they play a scenario with end results A 81 - B 19 C 80 - D 20 Then A and D get one point and B and C get zero points. Of course the example illustrates the extreme case when the difference between the scores on the same side is minimal. This is a very competitive scheme in the sense that it does not suffice to do pretty well. You really have to push it in order to get a better CM score, otherwise you'll end up with zero. I think it's ok in the final round. [ February 12, 2002, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]