Wreck

Chris I just resent the last turn I generated, from over a week ago. Perhaps we are mail-crossed. Progress with redwolf is fastest, which is good since we have 40 turns to fill. Ciks is a but slow, but that's OK since it is a short scenario.

A great idea! It could be very useful in a campaign format. Hmm...

Wreck leonard.dickens@verizon.net

I vote (a), we piggyback on ROWII, for scenarios. Doing this does not absolutely commit us to using Nabla scoring, though it does make it possible. Nabla is a good method, but it does mean we have to wait and be in-synch with the rest of the ROWII. I suppose this is not a big deal, since in any case we will have to wait for them (or them for us), before talking about scenarios. Anyway, to firm up what I think makes sense, we should do Titans in one big group of 8. We use the five battles from ROW and add two other QBs featuring referee created maps but using player-bought forces. Then we kick each other's butts to make sure we get our ROW battles done earlier, so that we don't hold up ROW from their finals and from being able to talk. Alternatively, we might use only some of the ROW battles and add more QB style stuff. Perhaps 4 and 3 instead of 5 and 2. Personally I think it best to use them all, but that's just me.

Regarding "sandbagging" in an ME... Treeburst's explanation is what I was expecting. If you use CM-scores directly, then (say) add them up, then sandbagging seems like a good strategy if you really believe you are substantially weaker than the enemy. (Of course, running forward *some* seems even better to me, but perhaps not aggressively to the midboard which is typical in MEs.) But that's the scoring system: if you have a 100% chance of losing 40-60, or a 20/80% chance of getting 60-40/20-80, then you optimize score by sandbagging. With Nablas, or 2-1-0, there is less incentive. Both of them have the effect of compressing outlying scores, so that the proportion of scoring between losing small and losing big is not such a big deal. However, even with such compression if you are certain enough that the enemy is vastly superior, then it would still pay (on average) to sandbag. There is no cure for this other than playing players good enough so that they think their chance to beat you is at least, say, 10% or something. Hopefully that should be case in Titans. If it is not, then the player doing the sandbagging does not really belong here.

Another thought: I don't see any reason why our sections need to be the same size as those used in ROWII. Nabla's does not depend on that. The only thing that depends on it, is that we need more scenarios if we make the section(s) larger. (We "waste" scenarios, if we make smaller sections.) Assume for a second we want 8 players for Titans. Here are two things we might do: (1) make a single section with 8 players, using the five ROWII scenarios and adding two additional QBs or other easily generated games (2) make the section size 4, w/ two sections. Three ROWII battles used. Then have a second round, using the best four players from round 1, using the remaining 2 ROWII battles, and adding a QB. Obviously we can also get reasonable results using 10 players as well. But right now, I think eight is about right: 1 each from RD, TH, BoB, Blitzkrieg, and WarefareHQ; then three independents which would include Fionn and me.

WineCape: It occurs to me that ROWII will almost certainly have a playoff round; which means there will be scenarios. We might also piggyback on that. I.e., have two 6-man sections playing the "normal" ROWII allotment plus maybe a QB or two. Then we take the top two guys in each section for a final playoff of four players. The titans of the titans, so to speak. Similarly I suppose that ROWII will be taking the top guy from each section for a four man playoff.

I would prefer Swamp represent TH over me. Yes he is that good, and as I have explained before I think he is more deserving in that I have not really played at TH for the last 9 months, whereas he is very active including running up that monstrous win streak. If there is room for me in Titans, I play. Otherwise, I play in ROWII, which is also fine. I can't lose here.

Fionn, one more comment. While in theory we could wait for ROWII to finish before playing, this has some big disadvantages. Either the game balances there are published, or they aren't. If they are not, then ROW has wait for us, which they won't want to do. If the results are published, then that will give the Titans some excellent information about game balance. Of course that's not the end of the world but it does partially negate one of the reasons to play in ROW to begin with. Another problem with waiting, is that the ROW players are naturally going to want to talk about it. It is hard enough waiting until everyone is done with a scenario; but to add on another three months or whatever would be terrible! Similarly, Boots and Tracks will probably want to publish the scenarios; again we would be pushing that back.

Fionn: regarding people refusing to fight in a ME: that seems like a very strange thing to do, to me. That's why the flags are in the middle: if you give them up you basically lose. It might be a boring battle, but seems to me if the other guys refuses to come forth you can just sit in the middle (shading to his side), and wait for him to either attack to get flags, or lose. Was this perhaps an artifact of whatever scoring system was being used in the tournament(s) you are recalling? I don't think 2-1-0, or Nabla's, could possibly reward such behavior.

Fionn, the 2-1-0 system does not work as you are modelling it. It balances the results, in essence by having all the attackers play each other, and all the defenders play each other. Take your example of an imbalanced scenario, for instance. Assume that the mean outcome for a huge number of games for some scenario is 75-25. Three games of are played, and they come out as follows: player A vs D: 80-20 player B vs E: 75-25 player C vs F: 40-60 The scoring using 2-1-0 are: player A and player F both get 2 points. Players B and E get 1 point each. Players D and C get zero. Incidentally, this is similar the system we used in the finals for ROW, except that there we had only four players, so it was a "1-0" system. Same idea, though: attackers competing against each other, defenders against each other. There were tiebreakers set up, which fortunately did not need to be used. In the case of Titans, if we play say 6 games I doubt they will come into effect.

Fionn, I certainly agree that MEs are unrealistic. On the other hand, they are also very common (at least on ladders), because they are widely considered to be well-balanced with minimal negotiation. So one question worth discussing here is: how much should Titans be about WWII realism, and how much should it be about gaming? I like the idea of joining ROWII from an organizational point of view: it makes getting good scenarios (and scoring) easy. But it will clearly deemphasize the skills generally used on ladders: force-buying, ME playing, and more generally playing scenarios that are evenly balanced. I also don't like having to wait for the rest of ROW to finish to get the scores, even though that would be the fairest way to do it. Fionn suggests we don't use them, but we can't really do that. Nabla's system needs many results to function well; with only 3 games of each scenario played I guess it might work but I don't think it would work very well. I think my simple 2-1-0 point system would work just as well; probably better given that Nablas might do weird stuff with outriding scores. If others do want to use ROWII for Titans, of course I would want to drop my current entry there and join the Titans.

I agree with redwolf that this should be a CMBO tourney. A similar CMBB tourney is fine, but let us play at least two or three games each before starting. I think that player force-selection is important. So I favor doing more quickbattle style of scenario. However I don't see that we have to be limited to actual quickbattles. We might, for instance, have fixed maps for various scenarios, but using player-bought forces. Obviously this requires more work from the umpires, which is a downside. But it would tend to make the resulting battles more comparable to each other. Regarding scoring. The easiest thing to do is to total final scores for/against, probably normalizing to 100. The problem with this sort of system is that it requires fair battles, or else symmetrical pairs of battles each similarly imbalanced. I would prefer a system that does not require mirroring battles; this gets a lot more variety. If we could convince WineCape to allow 6 players, then we could do a system rather like that used in the finals of ROW. Players play 3 similar battles; the player scoring highest score for his side (allied or axis) gets 2 points. Getting the second highest score is worth 1 point. Getting the lowest, zero. In ROW we played three battles; with six players more like 6 battles would seem to be enough to weed out a winner. I would suggest, just as a very rough proposal, something like this for a battle sequence. Three MEs, three attacks. In each group of three, there will be one using referee-chosen forces, one with player-chosen forces (unlimited), and one using player-chosen forces limited by Fionn's 75. Another thing we might do is use different types of forces; i.e. an armor ME, or a combined vs infantry attack/defend.

First of all, I use my defending advantages, meaning foxholes, mines, and TRPs (and other defenses if I am assigned them; I would not buy them). I set up planning for static defenses of certain lines of attack. Typically, covered routes: lines of trees perpendicular to the setup zone; places where there are stone buildings, etc. You certainly don't have to cover all possible lines; generally just the best. If the attacker uses inferior lines then you don't get your fort advantages, but he has worse cover for it. Setup is the most important time for the defender. You can win or lose in setup. If you accurately predict where the enemy will go, you can be there in good cover, with TRPs set right, ambushing AFVs and AT guns to take out his tanks when he uses them to try to get his attack moving, etc, etc. If you don't accurately predict the enemy's advance, then you will fight without the fortifications. And that is a 3:2 battle; you should still have an edge in intel but that's about it. Here's a tactic that you won't learn about in WWII or your favorite modern command manual. I don't set up to have any infantry off of the front line. All of my infantry is up, more or less. (Some perhaps slightly further back, but still in positions I expect the enemy to come to.) This is not WWII; it's CMBO. You have borg sighting and full control over all units at all times. The only reason to keep infantry reserves back is for covered movement. So, the battle starts. Typically, an attacker will not choose to pursue all the routes that are possible. He will focus on several; in a small battle only two usually. Your guys in the path of that, just sit there and wait to statically defend. You might use them to pinch a half-squad scout or two if you can forward of the MLR, but basically their idea is to hold the enemy off when he comes by exploiting their prepared position. Meanwhile, you have the guys that you set up where the enemy is not coming. These guys are now your infantry reserve. With them, you should be thinking you are Fionn: how I can I get these guys into a flank of the enemy, or to a surprise two-on-one? Sometimes you can do this and really clean up (though beware the enemy artillery). Sometimes you can't; and you can only move the reserves in to plug a hole. Outside of that, about the only advice I can give is to win the tank war. Keep your tanks moving from spot to spot, using interior protected lines to prevent the enemy from predicting you. It's hard to do right, and tank warfare is always chancy. All of what I just stated, other than the non-use of reserves, is pretty much there in what Jason posted two pages back. Read him and learn. Incidentally, on the commander's moral situation. I don't set up a defense knowing I will win. I know it is possible, and perhaps even likely depending on the other guy; that's all. I try to anticipate the sort of attack I would plan, and I set up to stop it. Once the game is going for a while, then I might start to think that I will win. But I try not to let it affect my decision process. I don't understand Fionn when he talks about that stuff. If I am aggressive (and I am; I know that), it is because I see it as superior to sitting there. If I am passive, which I am at times, it is because I cannot find a way to improve my position by movement. I always try to play to the odds, as cold and rational as I can be.

I have mailed Swamp a reference to this thread. For other non-ladder players I would love to see in the game, I nominate Jason Cawley. I don't know if he is "uber" or not in CM, but his encyclopedic knowledge about WWII and the Game is amazing. Also I can personally attest to one other game that he *is* (well was) superior in, and I have the feeling there was at least one more behind that. So I have the feeling he is quite good at CM. Alas, I don't think he will make the time to play. But I hope I am wrong.

I agree with Fionn. Interesting. I would like to play, but Swamp should be the man representing TH. Not only is he highest ranked there (I am fifth), and not only does he have a truly phenomenal win streak. He is a great player. He is the only player I have played more than a few times whom I honestly fear. Furthermore I have not played much at TH since last summer, when I decided to see if TH expertise translates into other formats. It did for me, and I expect it will for Swamp. But I am no longer a pure representative of all that is good (and bad) about TH.

But yet: That certainly sounds like a prescription for "full scale counter attack". I realize you might not be thinking that, but players without your skills will not be able to deflate the rhetoric and realize what you are saying. And this: ... is obscurantist nonsense. Your regular troops perform well because you lead them well and do not do things with them beyond their ability. There is no moral influence at all, outside of the commands you give. Your beliefs do not affect the computer, outside of your actions made predicated on those beliefs. To suggest otherwise, as you are doing, is nonsense.

If my recollection is right, there is no difference in bogging chance per distance when using Move or Fast. So, there is really not much use for Move with vehicles, if any. There have been people test this, but I am too lazy to search. I don't know of any testing of the effect of hiding for vehicles. Presumably it makes them harder to spot but I don't think that has been proven. Note that for fire discipline with infantry or vehicles, you should usually use ambush.

Martin, is there something I should do to get my AARs posted on that site?

Ligur: Regarding troop quality I agree with Fionn. Regular is all you need; in fact on defense I would probably use greenies if I could. (In a QB, of course, regular is typically the lowest quality available.) You get two things when you pay for better infantry: better firepower (10% more/quality level) and better morale. You pay 20% more per level, though. What you don't get, is better resistance to HE -- a shell is a shell. So with a fixed infantry budget, buying lower quality you can buy more platoons. This gets you ~8% more potential firepower, and more HE resistance (since you are buying more total men), but less resistance to enemy fire. Generally I find it is a good tradeoff; in particular HE resistance is something you need since the enemy is likely to bring arty and AFVs to the dance. So why not push it all the way to conscript? Well, conscripts (and greens to a lesser extent) don't stand fire very well; they tend to panic and then get annihilated. So the morale of better troops is worth paying for, but only up to a point. Generally speaking, if you find that in a battle your troops are almost never having morale problems, then you might well do better buying one level down in quality.

Guys: I was visiting family over the weekend and just got back. Catching up on email etc; should be getting turns back to y'all tomorrow.

Sorry Treeburst, I have not been paying attention to the thread... sign me up!

I second this, strongly. The stories in About Face will make you think about leadership differently, if you have not read about it much. Of the CM bonuses, the only one I am not completely sure of is the stealth bonus, and that I am happy to leave to the discretion of BTS. The other bonuses are fine with me. If anything, I would prefer the fire bonus to be a lot bigger. As it is, it is pretty unimportant, and that's a pity.

You mean for tanks? There are limited uses, but agreed ambushing with tanks is generally a bad idea. There are limited uses, however. I used a tank ambush in a recent game in the ROW finals, and it worked. (Though, very likely I would have gotten the same kill without placing the ambush marker.) With units which can hide effectively, ambush is an incredibly useful tool for fire discipline and sighting.

Regarding the gun firing model in CMBO: People want to know how a gun can miss twice at 20m. I detect a certain lack of imagination. CM models every tank as if it had a flawless, but slow, autoloader. The tank fires. 10s later, without fail, it fires again. 10s later it fires again. Breeches never jam. Loaders never get sweaty palms and mishandle a round. Loaders always take exactly 10s (or whatever it is) to load their round. I suggest that in a real tank, in real combat, with real lives on the line, men in tanks functioned a lot less predictably than that. As did the guns they were firing. If that is so, then one way to model it would be directly. Just as there is a "shocked" tank state, make tank states for "loader dropped shell" or "driver sings aria" or "breech jammed" etc. But another way is just to build in a 10% chance to miss (say), each and every shot. So the butterfingers loader is never modelled directly. This is, I believe, the way BTS have chosen to model rare random screwups in CMBO. So if one of your tanks misses and it's "impossible", just imagine that your loader screwed up, the commander briefly froze in panic, or any of a zillion possible things that can happen in combat that are not worth modelling as specific, separate states for tank crews.