John Hough Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 A previous topic got me thinking about the proper way to do cm tournaments (which are sure to happen if it's popular enough, which it certainly looks like it's going to be). The basic problem with cm in tournaments is that it's awfully hard to balance scenarios to the point where they're sufficiently fair to both sides. You have two different forces, with vastly different capabilities, preferably asymmetrical terrain, and often an attacker and a defender. So if(when) people do cm tournaments, IMO, we should throw out standard elimination style tournaments, and go with a tournament paradigm that's been working for years for inherently uneven games: duplicate bridge. For those that don't know how it works, the basic idea is that all the north-south pairs play all the east-west pairs, and a pair's score depends on the number of pairs in their position they beat. You can also do team of four contests where both pairs on a team's scores are added together before comparing the scores to the other teams'. You end up with a winning N-S pair and a winning E-W pair, or one winning team of four. So for cm, I'd have a bunch of axis commanders and a bunch of allied commanders (or teams of one of each) all play each other on totally new and perhaps deliberately imbalanced scenarios designed by tournament administrators. Therein lies the beauty of the system... a scenario could be completely imbalanced, and you could barely walk away with 12% victory points (however those are determined : ), but you could still win if the other commanders are getting 8 or 9 percent. Recognizing how badly you've been screwed by HQ (or the scenario designer) becames a valuable skill. And this removes a realism complaint.. people know to use a certain amount of caution now, because they know there's an equal force out there SOMEWHERE. It also makes exciting, risky moves more worthwhile... your fancy encirling moves could get you screwed, but they could also get you a bunch of captives... and if the rest of the field is just shooting those guys, you'll end up ahead. The margin of victory starts actually making a difference. The thing that might cause trouble is that you have to be able to trust people to not scout out the new scenarios beforehand. But that'd be a problem with any tournament using new scenarios, which would be a lot cooler if you could seriously trust people. Ah, but just my two cents... I expect to see plenty of elimination tournaments anyway... -John Hough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 excellent post, john. I think we could solve the problem of "map scouting" simply by releasing the maps for install at the time of the tournament. I believe that there will be no shortage of scenario/map designers around here... And a tournament could be "sponsored" by whoever wants to build the maps. On a related topic, we really need a *central* website to do this... with chat and archived custom maps.. I believe it would bring more people in to CM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 well I agree with variations on the tourney setup, this was also an issue in close combat; as far as ladders and individual play go though, We found scenarios with prebought units(in cc2) were often more unbalanced than if a point system per unit was used ( ie requistioning units) - Often ones idea of a units capabilities can be misleading ( due to misinformation or just being new to this kind of material amongst other things :-P ) With this comes battles whcih may not seem to be lopsided to the creator initially but unfortuantely culminate as such. WHile these battles can still be fun to play in any kind of competitive play it is hardly a good judge of skill if the forces are not balanced. ( less of course the underdog happens to open a big can of whup-ass lol) Also being able to purchase your own units when the points are balanced fairly allows ones personal style of tactics to develop with the game, dont get me wrong I like scenarios, but I have found in head to head the ability to requisitions ones own units proves to make an exciting game. Maybe the guys at the BTS team will notice this post an could somehow work it out if they havent already THis was one of cc2's greatests assets for fair competition, and after all thats a good portion of the reaasons why we armchair generals like to play to test our hypothetical 'combat effectiveness' :-P SSPL out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Nifty idea, John! ::wishes he'd thought of it first:: Foobar, I think the potential problem re: scouting the maps/scenarios is that in duplicate play, during a tournament you eventually play every scenario (or at least most of them), just against different people each time. So scenario #1 is played between players A and N first, then between B and O while A and Z play #2, and so on. You probably don't want to be doing all the scenarios simultaneously, so different people would see different scenarios first, and collusion becomes possible. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Well, I think that the way most tournaments are being organised now is that they are played in layers. (I've been looking into this recently.) E.g. 64 players play in the first round. ONE SCENARIO is made for all of these players. This scenario is not seen by either player prior to the tournament's start. On the day the tournament starts they are given a URL and go and download it and begin playing. Each player has an opponent (player 2) Player 1 and player 2 will play TWO games of this scenario. In 1 game player 1 will be the US and in the other the German forces. Admittedly this does reduce the FOW somewhat but it's pretty unavoidable and penalises both sides equally so its still a test of skill. The players complete both games and send their results in. Since both players played each side the COMBINED RESULT is taken and the COMBINED SCORE is used to decide which player won. Alternately you can have ONE map and allocate points. A third party will purchase the units and then send the map to the players for unit placement and then they begin playing. If you want to be REALLY sneaky you could have them buy forces without allowing them to see the map (this would ensure balanced forces being purchased). The 32 players who won go into round 2 where they AGAIN get a new scenario or map whch hasn't been released before. etc etc That's the model I'd propose.. Comments? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Fionn, did you pick 64 'cos its a doubling (1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,...) number? If so this would make it tough to get the right number of people for the tourney without ditching anyone. eg, if 65 signed up you would either have to tell someone to go away, or look for another 63 players. Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted November 16, 1999 Author Share Posted November 16, 1999 Fionn, your method does have it's advantages, most particularly that you get an unequivocal champion. But it also has some significant disadvantages. FOW is considerably reduced the second time though, and that can considerably change play balance. Who wouldn't want their first time through 'Last Defense' to be as the allies? (yeah, I know, you'd have better scenarios than that, but the point is still valid) It seems to me that deliberately imbalanced scenarios wouldn't work out as well, the second time through you get to play to a specific victory percent goal, and, as JonS points out, you need to have a power of two players sign up, or mess around with bys. I do like your workaround for buying troops, though I think I'd prefer designed scenarios. Lee, what I'd likely do is have everyone play on a specific scenario at the same time... Make the scenario available right before the game is due to be played, and trust people not to play through it against the computer while they're playing the tourney game or get their friends playing the other side at the same time to give them intel. Particularly for team of two tourneys, this trust might be misplaced, but what can you do? I'd like to think you can get enough people who put fun ahead of glory to get a reasonable tourney this way.... -John Hough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Love the thinking here. Capt Foobar: Re: a game site. I'm pretty certain that has/is being established at the Gamers Net. Fionn has the Combat Misssion HQ site (where CM Demo Download can be found. Also the TGN Discussion boards have a Combat Mission Slot set up already. I've spent ALOT of time with steel Panthers in that area and think highly of the TGN staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 It should be possible to make a scenario impossible (or at least difficult) for a single player to play through by setting it up as a two player game, and only providing access to the password you need to play your own side. As John H points out, this won't work for a two player 'team'. Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted November 16, 1999 Author Share Posted November 16, 1999 Does that work? Don't you need the scenario file as well as the orders file? and wouldn't it, if it did work, remove the option for one of the sides to set up troops? -John Hough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 JonS, Oh a tournament can be played with any number. I just picked 64 cause it was simple to use . BTW ONE reason the type of tournament I'm suggesting is good is that it allows seeding of players PLUS each level would be finished within 2 weeks ( 2 weeks to play each two-sided game is quite reasonable). One other reason is that TGN has run many tournaments of this setup using " brand new scenarios never seen before" for SP etc and they've all worked out really well. John, As to the FOW question. You play BOTH games at the same time. E.g. you send turn 1 of the Allied game with turn 1 of the German game. To do otherwise would be handing advantages around. There's an established SOP for this at TGN and it seems to have worked ou really well for the SP crowd from what I can see. Also I mustn't have been clear (it's early here). The way it works is you get ONE designed scenario which has been playtested for balance and the troops are already assigned. That's the way its been done so far.. I'm open to other ways but I think that if what's known works and is liked then it's probably good to stick with it (at least for the first tournament ). The second paragraph of your post John Hough is exactly what I am proposing. It's a scenario wihch is only posted to the site the day the playoffs begin. It has been tried for SP and the SP players seemed to like it IIRC. It seems to me that this offers a good paradigm to try first and then develop a unique CM style of tournament FROM if necessary. Comments? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Good lord! Something useful to come out of SP! And mentioned on THIS board! Will wonders never cease? Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme [This message has been edited by JonS (edited 11-15-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted November 16, 1999 Author Share Posted November 16, 1999 Oh, the games are simultaneous! I didn't get that at all. I almost don't know if that's an improvement. I suppose it is, but it would be really nice to have blind runs through the scenarios. But yours at least reduces the amount of cheating that can be done by playing the computer or contacting folks on the other side. I think there's a fundamental difference in goals here, as I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of cheat-proofing for more fun games in the tournament. So my style probably works a lot better for an 'invitational' sort of tournament... once you get to know which people are trustworthy. I DID get that the points thing was separate. I had a work-around for that that involved trusting your opponent not to peek in the scenario editor. A third party is better, if you can get a willing third party. -John Hough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 I may be wrong but it seems to me that with the model Fionn proposes (ie simultaneously playing both sides against the same opponent) you lose one aspect of FoW which is really nice. Though no doubt it would be fairer if at all possible it would be preferable to incorporate that increased level of uncertainty. I also like the idea of more unbalanced scenarios though of course an imbalance in forces can always be compensated by the setting of victory conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 I like what John Hough proposed in his original post. It allows for totally unbalanced scenarios and all that matters is that you did better than all of the other people in your position. I think a system like this would add much more uncertainty to the game if you knew that the games didn't have to be completely balanced. Ultimately, I think that multiple tournament types would be fun. Single elimination on a set map with predesignated forces. A tournament where each player gets to choose his own forces. And a duplicate bridge type with the possibility of wildly imbalanced forces. I've played a bunch of Magic tournaments and the same type of tournament over and over gets boring. After a while, those of us who played frequently devised all sorts various ways to play a tournament (Swiss, single elimination, double elimination,. teams ...) and playing restrictions (mostly involving limits on what cards could be used). It kept things interesting and each different tournament type required different strategies to win. Jason [This message has been edited by guachi (edited 11-16-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 Guys, Because both players play both sides it IS possible to have completely unbalanced forces at work. If the Germans have 1 platoon and the US 1 company then Player 1 will play the Germans in 1 game and die quickly and play the US in 1 game and win easily. Combine BOTH his scores and compare them with his opponents to determine the winner. The playing of the scenario from both sides actually allows unbalanced games to be played more than would otherwise be possible. I know some people are talking about using formulae or something to turn a major defeat in an outnumbered situation into a win BUT I guarantee that there will be hard feelings once a formula becomes involved ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted November 16, 1999 Author Share Posted November 16, 1999 Yes, it's possible to have unbalanced scenarios at work from a scoring point of view... But they'll play a lot better if you don't know exactly how imbalanced they are. Sure, a platoon will die quickly and messily against a company if the company knows what it's up against. But, with such an imbalance, it would only be fair to tell the platoon what to expect, and not tell the company, and the platoon can split up to look bigger, play psych-out games, make the company worry about further ambushes, etc. And maybe delay things to the point where it could hold on to one of the objectives, or just manage to conserve more men. It's not the scoring of unbalanced scenarios in your system that makes them not work, but rather, the loss of FOW. And I agree, the formula idea is a bad one... Nothing worse than feeling like you've crushed the enemy, then having some jerk come along and tell you that a few too many of your guys got nosebleeds, so you lost... -John Hough [This message has been edited by John Hough (edited 11-16-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 As with many things re: CM, playing both sides simultaneously would take some getting used to. I would personally prefer to play either one side at a time, or just play ONE side (given they are balanced scenarios..hehe). You guys have put so much work into making the FOW an integral part of the game, it seems a shame to sacrifice it in the tournament. I wont whine, whatever ends up being decided, but I play mostly for the excitement of the FOW, and I don't want it to be eliminated from the tourneys... Someone rebut me on why we shouldn't just play each map one time, as one side, in a balance tested scenario.... (all comments here-in are respectfully put...Im not trying to start another nahvertuiergiurgfjkdgungswaffey) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Well in a perfectly balanced scenario your way would work fine Cpt Foobar. The only problem is that perfectly balancing a scenario is so difficult that the "play each side method" is used to avoid any messy arguments when 80% of German players lose and they all claim the German side was weaker etc. That'd be the main reason I could see for it myself. Imagine how bad you'd feel if a scenario was a bit unbalanced and u lost CAUSE it was unbalanced. Also, by having players play BOTH sides you can put in unbalanced scenarios too which adds more spice to the game. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 JonS statement..."Good Lord! Something useful to come out of SP...? I confess to be mystified at What it is you could mean. Would you mind explaining... A Dumb SPer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 ME it was a joke / toungue-in-cheek (TIC) comment. I play SP quite a bit too, but it seems to get short shrift around here ... can't see why really considering all teh similarities to CM (very TIC) Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 If it is the general consensus that a tournament of this style is preferred, that is fine. I think I will try to build support for a seperate "contest" then. Call it the FOW tourney. See, the more I play against people, the more I believe that a VERY important requirement to defeating a non-ai opponent is the ability to quickly, accurately Recon the enemy's forces. Without the need to assess the opponents forces, it simply becomes a tactical combat situation. If my opponent "splits" his squads in the woods as approaching me in a standard tournament, I know darn well he is doing it, because I am controlling those units in the corresponding game, and I know how many squads are under my control in that game. FOW play allows the best real competition in this game.No doubt about it. And this is why I want to build support for some semi-official FOW play. In response to the idea that there is no way to completely balance a scenario 100%, I feel pretty confident in the abilities of the grogs around here to come up with scenarios that are close enough for me. I would liken the bad luck of being slightly disadvantaged in a scenario, to any other bad luck that transpired. What you do with the hand you are dealt is up to you. "No whiners" would be the mantra of the FOW tourney. Deal with it. If anyone is in sees where I'm coming from, give me some help here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 A couple of comments on tournament design - 1/ are you familiar with "Swiss Chess" tournament draw systems? There are variations, but basically no-one gets knocked out, and all players end up playing people of roughly htesame score (and hence presumably skill level). IMO vastly superior to any knock out system. 2/ Someone noted 2 weeks for a game - have you considerd that some/many players will not be in ConUS, and getting more than 1 turn done between them and US players will be impossible due to time zone differences. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts