How to ensure every H2H QB you play is "balanced" fairly

[Lt Bull]

The concept of what determines if a particular scenario (or QB) is "balanced" or not can be a very subjective thing to try and grapple with. For the sake of this discussion I will limit this discussion to "head to head" games between two players. 

I'm not sure how others might define what makes a "balanced" scenario/QB, but I think of it in statistical terms:  for instance, if the particular scenario/QB was played "double blind" by multiple pairs of "equally" rated players many times (ideally (though impossibly) an infinite amount of times), you would expect the win/loss distribtion to approach 50:50 ie. an equal number of Allied to Axis "wins".  Any bias away from a 50:50 distrubution of wins would give grounds to indicate the particular scenario/QB is "unbalanced".  The greater the bias/deviation in wis/loss distribution, the greater the "imbalance".  However just considering the resolution of scenarios/QBs as just a pure binary "win" or "loss" outcome for one side may still hide an imbalance that otherwise remains evident.

Outcomes of CM scenarios/QBs however aren't actually just purely binary outcomes. A degree or level of victory/defeat based on actual "victory points" gained by each side, or more specifically, the numeric differential in the victory points gained by each side at the end of every battle determines the actual victory level assigned by CM. ie. either draw, minor victory/defeat, tactical victory/defeat, or total victory/defeat.

But is it that simple? Consider a scenario/QB that has an equal 50:50 win/loss distribution that makes the scenario/QB appear "balanced".  Should it still be considered "balanced" if the average magnitude (or level) of victories being recorded for each side is different for both sides? eg. the Allies might win 50% of the time, with the average victory level being "total victory", yet the Axis win 50% of the time but with the average victory level being "minor victory".   It could be argued here that the scenario/QB actually is not totally "balanced" but rather favouring the Allies.  So perhaps considering the actual victory points differential (or VPD) of each game played may be the better metric or indicator to monitor when studying "balance".

Note that when monitoring VPD (rather than just wins and losses), you would expect the average VPD of all games played to approach zero (0) if the scenario/QB was to be considered "balanced".  For the purposes of this discussion and to set a convention, we can always consider the VPD:

Victory Point  Differntial (VPD) = [ALLIES victory points] minus [AXIS victory points]

That means the VPD could be a positive or negative number, with a positive VPD typically meaning an Allied victory/Axis defeat and a negative VPD meaning an Allied defeat/Axis victory.  Keep in mind that there is a range of positive and negative VPDs centred about zero that CM will nevertheless consider as being a draw.  When considering VPD, the "ideal balanced" scenario/QB could be seen as one where the average VPD of all games played would follow a normal distribution (or bell curve) centred about zero

(SIDE NOTE: For those of you who are more statistacally inclined, it is worth considering that I can not see reason to assume that the actual distribution of VPD for all games played for any CM scenario/QB has any reason to even assume, let alone appraoch, a normal distribution. Unless it can be pointed out otherwise, I don't think the central limit theorm (and any inherint/inevitable tendency that the VPD would tend towards a normal distriution) can be applied here.  The actual distribution of VPD for any scenario/QB in question could follow one of many other types of distributions (eg. skewed or gamma, bimodal etc). Certainly, idealistically a symmetrical distribution centred about zero would probably be considered more balanced than say one that has a population VPD average (expected outcome) of zero but is otherwise asymmetrically skewed about zero.  Let me know if you think otherwise.)

That is all just background to what I really wanted to discuss and present however.....

Having recently considered a prospective QB battle with a PBEM opponent, I got thinking about how two competing players could come to a mutualy achieved agreement on the QB parameters to ensure the QB battle was "fairly balanced".  My inspiration was based on the "I cut, you choose" protocl that ensures fair division and allocation of a divisible resource between two parties.  The typical example is of two brothers who want to "evenly and fairly" share a cake.   The protocol proceeds as follows: one person ("the cutter") cuts the cake into two pieces; the other person ("the chooser") chooses one of the pieces; the cutter receives the remaining piece.

If we consider CM QBs played H2H, I would say the vast majority of them are essentially meeting engagements (MEs) played on maps that have some degree of geographical symmetry, be it in the distribution of terrain, setup zones and/or Objective Locations, mirrored about an imaginary mid-line that would typically evenly divide the map in half between the Allied half of the map and the Axis half of the map.  Of course, these ME QBs would typically be setup so that both sides get the same amount (or near enough to be close enough) of unit purchase points.  I will use the term force points (FP) to mean the same thing as uniy purchase pioints.  Choosing to play on an "unbiased" ME map with equal FPs each side just seems to be the easiest way to ensure the QB is "fair", so it may not be surprising why ME QBs are more likely to be played than the other types of QBs (probes (PR), attack (AT) and assualts (AS).

I should also introduce at this point the concept of force ratio (or FR).  It is defined as:

Force ratio (FR) = [side A FP] / [side B FP]

where side A is typically the "attacker" and side B the "defender" (ie side A FP is either equal to or greater than side B FP). ie. a FR of 1.25 means the "attacker" has  25% more FP to spend than the 'defender".  With FR already defined in terms of the attacker FP to defender FP ratio, it does help to now simply consider the use of the global term force size (FS) as refering to just the "base" defenders FP, from which the attacker FP can be then be readily calculated by multiplying it with the the force ration (FR)

The CM QB generator has pre-programmed FRs associated with each QB type.  They are as follows (without any force modifiers applied):

ME FR = 1

PR FR = between 1.45 and 1.49

AT FR = between 1.59 and 1.65

AS FR = between 1.76 and 1.84

However, messing around with the force modifier parameter, the range of FRs possible extends to:

ME FR = between 1 and 2.48

PR FR = between 1.45 and 3.7

AT FR = between 1.42 and 4.11

AS FR = between 1.29 and 4.57

But what really makes an ME an ME, a PR a PR, an AT and AT and a AS and AS? What CM suggest are really just "guides" and broad categories to describe certain kinds of battles of various FR.

FR is really just only one parameter in a CM QB that influences the "balance" of a QB, or can be adjusted to balance a QB. The parameter against which the FR is typically compared against are what I would call the QB battlefield parameters.  This would comprise of the actual QB map itself (the distribution of terrain/topography/feratures) in relation to any Objective Locations (including their value) and the respective setup zones, and how they all interact together as a whole on the map. Additional to this you would also need to consider the soft factors such as weather/visibility/conditions and battle duration. The "date" and "theatre" a QB is based on may also be an influence as it may determine the availability of some units that might otherwise potentially be influential (if purchased) in the QB.  I might make the assertion here that most players looking to play QBs might first start by searching for a QB map that looks interesting and suitable enough to play (size/layout etc) and typically determine these QB battlefield parameters without much trouble.

With all these QB battlefield parameters predetermined and considered togther, the question can be asked:

What method can players use to help determine what force ratio (FR) to assign to any QB map to make it "balanced"?

I have considered the following procedure that can be used by two prospectiive players who face this question when they have already selected the map and the QB battlefield parameters:

1.  Both players preview the QB map and the QB battlefield parameters and consider playing the QB from both the "attacker" and "defender" perspective in terms of force ratio (FR).  They may at this point secretly record what force size (FS) they think would be suitable to use on the QB map selected (if not already agreed upon).

2.  They secretly record the force ratio (FR) they think that should be applied to the QB in order to make it a fair/"balanced" contest.

3.  Both players then reveal their nominated FR (and FS if required) and the average between the two numbers is calculated.  This average becomes the FR (and FS) that will be used in the QB.

4.  The player who nominated the HIGHEST FR plays as the 'defender".  The player who nominate the LOWEST FR  plays as the "attacker".

5.  Players can now consult the QB Force Ratios Table that I have made available here that fully details every possible QB Force Ratio (FR) and Force Points (FP)/Force Size (FS) combination that can be achieved by the CM QB setup screen: 

 

6.  Look up the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in the previous steps that best match the "Ratio" and "DEF Points") combo values respectively in the QB Points Combo/Force ratio table.  Note down these values "actual" configurable CM QB paramters. There are only a discrete number of QB combinations possible in the CM QB setup screen, so the goal in this step is to sort through all the possibilities to find the one that best matches the FR and FS parameters determined in step 3.

eg.  If FR = 1.70  and FS = 4750 was determined in step 3, the best match in the table would be achiveable by reading off 4500 (approx 4750) and 1.68 (approx 1.70) and configuring a Large ME with a +70% modifer in the CM QB setup screen (which will result in the Attacker getting 7580 FP and teh defender 4500 FP (FR=1.68):

7.  Depending on what QB parameters get selected in step 6, players may need to use the Sceanrio Editor to open and edit the actual QB Map file to tweek one parameter to allow the QB map to actually be visible and selectable in the QB setup screen. 

eg.  players may have selected to play a particular QB map that had previously been tagged as an "Allied Probe" map.  The"actual' QB parameters determined via step 6 may have however pointed to setting the QB battle up as a Large ME (LME) with + 70% modifier. The player will need to use the Scenario Editor, Load the chosen QB map file, modify the "Battle Type" field from say "Allied Probe" to "Meeting Engagement" as per the example.  Doing so makes the particular QB Map file visible and selectable when the time comes to browse for the human selected QB map.  Save file as new name and exit the Scneario Editor.

8. Load the QB setup screen and and configure all the "actual" QB parameters determined from the table (typically that best matches the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in Step 6, as well as any other QB parameters:

.

Pressing OK will prompt the user to select the QB Map (review Step 7 if the QB does not appear in the file list).

(It is important to note that when considering FR, the actual FS (force size) that is used in the QB is probably best considered a separate individual factor for consideration that just determines the number of units that appear on the map in proportions defined by the FR.  We can assume that the FS are independant to and do not affect QB balance, and just determine the actual size of each of the forces.  This may not actually be the case but I will assume it is fair enough assumption for simplicity unless otherwise convinced).

I don't know if this method has ever been considered or used before, but unless advised otherwise, I think it is quite a simple, fair and robust means of determining how to "balance" a QB.I don't think the system can be "gamed" by either participating player to force a QB parameter outcome that somehow favours them over their opponent.  Players just need to be able to look at a QB map, consider all the relevant battlefield parameters (eg setup zones, terrain, Objective Locations etc) and put a number to what they think the attacker:defender force ratio should be to make the QB "balanced", prior to even knowing whether they will be the atatcker or the defender.  This may take some experience to get the right feel.  It certainly will be interesting how players react to the outcomes of their QBs.  If they claimed that the QB was "unbalanced" not in their favour, then perhaps their own poor misjudgment when they originally 'evaluated" the QB map and nominated their own FR may have something to do with it.  Again, assigning a FR to a QB to achieve balance is not something players typically have exactly been doing.  They HAVE and DO evaluate QB maps for balance however, though without ever really assigning a metric to it.  Now that metric exists.  It just needs tio be calibrated.

I hope the "fairness" of this method is self evident by understanding the dynamics at play behind the method described.  i can see that some folks might not be able to see it that way and would need some kind of explanation to convince them of how this is a "fair" way of determining QB balance.  I could spend some time explaining that if asked.

Happy to hear your comments/crticism/thoughts/experience with it as it really is like an alpha/beta level idea that needs some vigourous testing/scrutiny.

Bull

Edited October 25, 2020 by Lt Bull

[z1812]

If I am playing against the A.I. I am concerned with having an interesting and enjoyable game. I am not much concerned with balance. 

If I am playing against a human then the battle can be offered with an option to mirror.  Nearly all my opponents are more interested in competitive fun. Everybody is pretty honest about doing their best to make battles equal to both sides.

There are many variables, as you noted. I have read that most historical battles were not equal or balanced. Perhaps thats the answer.

[Lt Bull]

4 hours ago, z1812 said:

If I am playing against the A.I. I am concerned with having an interesting and enjoyable game. I am not much concerned with balance. 

Although my discussion is exclusively about H2H gameplay (and QBs in particular),I  would say interesting and enjoyable games are always going to figure in to whether a player choses to play particular  SP or MP game.  This typically gets evaluated if and when you might read some recommendation/review/AAR about a scenario or QB map somewhere, or when you just look at the map in the scenario editor and reading any text/notes you might find relating to the QB map or scenario in question.

4 hours ago, z1812 said:

If I am playing against a human then the battle can be offered with an option to mirror.  Nearly all my opponents are more interested in competitive fun. Everybody is pretty honest about doing their best to make battles equal to both sides.

I believe the whole concept behind mirrored battles is to introduce an element of "fairness" between competing players to address issues of potential "imbalance" in the given QB/scenario being played (or in the most petty of cases, compensating for any negative feelings a player may otherwise harbour if they instead only played the battle from one side and perhaps were soundly defeated possibly feeling like they got "the rough end of the stick" when sides were allocated.  If mirrored battles of a given scenario/QB are played (typically simultaneously), then playing one side in one battle is essentially like the perfect spoiler for the same battle you are playing but from the other side.  This perpetual constant spoiler that hangs over mirrored battles is something I just cant reconcile and ultimately spoils for me the challenge of even playing a scenario/QB in the first place.  Any briefings meticulously crafted and designed by the scenario designer that you read from one side that might otherwise be their way of providing a level of unknown/uncertainty in to say the disposition/location/intelligence on the enemy forces is essentially throwing out the window.  Such a waste of what I think is a more worthwhile experience to enjoy.  What also annoys me about double blind battles is that your opponent may also learn and use your own strategies/tactics (that you possibly laboured over to develop) against you in the mirrored game. The argument "well so can you" just doesn't cut it for me and misses the point of playing experience I am after in the first place. The whole experience of playing mirrored games just seems so artificial, contrived and unnecessary.

I am of the view that the most 'realistic", challenging and exciting gaming experiences playing CM are primed by design to occur the one and only time you ever decide to play a chosen scenario/QB double blind with a human opponent (though in theory it is just as valid if you play it SP vs a well designed AI).  There is something very "unique" and special about the first playthrough of a scenario/QB played double blind, where you first experience and discover all and any of the hidden unexpected surprises that may await you and your opponent as you push through each turn, regardless of what side you end up playing.  For that very reason, I typically do not ever play any scenario twice, and only ever experience them from one side.  I would only consider playing the scenario again if I felt there was perhaps a good enough reason to (eg. academically wondering if a different approach to the battle would have achieved a more favourable result, knowing full well that this alternate approach was born from pure hindsight from having already played the battle, or something academic like that). I don't know (or care) how other players consider the concept of mirrored games but that's just my take and reasoning behind my thoughts on it.

4 hours ago, z1812 said:

There are many variables, as you noted. I have read that most historical battles were not equal or balanced. Perhaps thats the answer.

It stands to reason that most historical balanced were not 'equal" or "balanced". You just need to consider the implications across the ages of the adage "don't start a fight you can't win".  Not sure what the question you are suggesting an answer to is however.

I am not so concerned about the actual VPD outcome of any given QB as I am in knowing the QB is suitably balanced such that the VPD reported at the end of the battle is a decent measurable representation of the battle outcome, given most players strive to configure QBs as such in the first place.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Lt Bull

[BornGinger]

Why does a battle have to be balanced other than in a ladder game? To be something of an underdog and do quite well for oneself even though the end result is a loss is ok as long as it wasn't a total loss.

Edited October 25, 2020 by BornGinger

[MikeyD]

I recall long ago someone mentioning that 'meeting engagements" are both the most popular and least realistic kind of engagement the game offers. Least realistic because its rare for equally weighted front line forces to blindly stumble into each other on neutral ground. The counter-argument would be that ME's aren't really 'blind' because we KNOW the enemy is 'over there' (pointing to the far side of the map) and will be a roughly equal force. Nobody worries about advancing your reduced company and running into a reinforced battalion on the other side.

I recall back-in-the-day people would make exactly mirrored battle maps for precisely balanced forces to play over. That's rare these days because its much more fun to play on terrain maps based on real world locations with real world dimensions. Working on the coming CMRT module, I'd sometimes open a map without forces, get down to ground level and go on a relaxing virtual stroll through the countryside. You don't get that feeling on an artificial mirrored battle map.

[Lt Bull]

8 hours ago, BornGinger said:

Why does a battle have to be balanced other than in a ladder game? To be something of an underdog and do quite well for oneself even though the end result is a loss is ok as long as it wasn't a total loss.

For what it's worth, I definitely was not presenting this coming from the perspective of someone who players ladder games, though it probably might be of more interest to those that do play ladder games.

I understand and agree with what you are saying about being the underdog in a battle, "losing" and still still doing well (and having fun just playing it at the same time). Many times when I get to an AAR screen of a battle I just played I kind of already have my mind made up as to how things went regardless of what VPD may indicate.

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I recall long ago someone mentioning that 'meeting engagements" are both the most popular and least realistic kind of engagement the game offers. Least realistic because its rare for equally weighted front line forces to blindly stumble into each other on neutral ground. The counter-argument would be that ME's aren't really 'blind' because we KNOW the enemy is 'over there' (pointing to the far side of the map) and will be a roughly equal force. Nobody worries about advancing your reduced company and running into a reinforced battalion on the other side.

I have stated my not too surprising reasons for why I think MEs would be more popular in the realm of QBs.  FWIW, the game of chess is essentially set up as a mirrored ME.  I don't really have an issue with MEs necessarily being "historically rare" and I am not really trying to dissuade anyone from playing them.  I am however encouraging  players to be a bit more adventurous in their selection of QB by suggesting a workable framework for setting up more asymmetric QB engagement.  I am trying to make choosing and setting up a non-ME QB less "scary" and daunting, as I think players stick to MEs because they are seen as easier to setup and a "safer bet' for balance.

Just in review, I think the main reason why MEs are the most popular QBs is because players feel more comfortable knowing the battle typically is setup like a game of chess: equal forces (well at least as far as purchase points go), an apparently unbiased map, start at either ends, must move to take ground etc. If everything is "even" on both sides then it must be fair.

It's curious to consider just what kind of "negotiation" will play out if, for example, one player suggests, just to spice things up, that the ME map (which you can consider to be pretty much symmetrical with Terrain Objectives located in the middle), suggests that the Terrain Objectives be moved say half the distance towards one player.  Would we expect both players to just have no issue at all with this change and play regardless?  Or would we perhaps expect some discussions to arise about "balance" and 'fairness"?  What are the existing tools they have to deal with this?

To be honest, I don't think I have ever heard from any player who has ever, let alone regularly, plays non-ME QBs H2H. It certainly will be interesting to see how two players would typically agree on the QB parameters for a non-ME battle.

How and when do they decide who is the attacker and defender? How do they decide on the appropriate force ratio (FR) for the particular map selected?  Do they just go with the CM QB FR defaults with the idea that "well if this map has been tagged as an Assault map then we just accept the default QB FR presented to us at the QB setup screen"?

I really want to hear how players typically (if at all) deal with setting up and agreeing on the parameters of QBs that are not trying to be MEs.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Lt Bull

[scrappie]

I regularly play simultaneous mirrored attack / defence QB games because ME's usually turn into a race to occupy and hold the central objective(s).  I also think the tactical problems to be solved to plan a good attack / defence are more interesting (and realistic).  

I have also recently started asking my opponents to agree at the outset that we will ceasefire after the allotted time expires.

I rarely have the problem you mentioned about opponents mirroring your strategy - usually the combination of different force selections and different initial deployments makes it difficult to mimic the opponents strategy.  Where it sometimes happens is when you find a good firing position or covered route that your opponent then copies (or vice versa).  They usually can't do this immediately though, so they get less advantage anyway.

I also find it interesting to compare how my opponents choose to approach the same tactical problem & which approach works out to be the most effective.

You can't really use this approach for scenarios though due to the fixed force selection.

When evaluating the results for ladder competitions though it would be good if points were allocated on the basis of the victory point .differential between the 2 games.

[Lt Bull]

6 hours ago, scrappie said:

I regularly play simultaneous mirrored attack / defence QB games because ME's usually turn into a race to occupy and hold the central objective(s).  I also think the tactical problems to be solved to plan a good attack / defence are more interesting (and realistic).  .

I understand why you would want to not play a ME QB for the reasons you mention.  However I still need to ask why at all you feel like you need/should play it mirrored?  Is it that both players, having otherwise agreed to just play the QB once (unmirrored), just want to avoid the "well this QB was unbalanced from the start" kind of regret/lamenting that can occur if the battle ends up being a bit of a cakewalk? Is mirroring battles just really some kind of "insurance" and avoidance against that happening?

6 hours ago, scrappie said:

I regularly play simultaneous mirrored attack / defence QB games...

I rarely have the problem you mentioned about opponents mirroring your strategy - usually the combination of different force selections and different initial deployments makes it difficult to mimic the opponents strategy.  Where it sometimes happens is when you find a good firing position or covered route that your opponent then copies (or vice versa).  They usually can't do this immediately though, so they get less advantage anyway.

I would include things like copying your good firing positions as part of mirroring the other players strategy.  Your own effort to survey and find that position is effort you put in (as part of your strategy) that is now used against you. Either way, for reasons I've explained, there is something just too odd and artificial about mirrored games.  Of the times I have played them, I have been very conflicted in what I do in one game as I feel it can potentially affect the other, which is just a crazy unrealistic thing to have to consider.

6 hours ago, scrappie said:

I also find it interesting to compare how my opponents choose to approach the same tactical problem & which approach works out to be the most effective.

I agree about finding that interesting, though definitely not worth mirroring games for.  Instead, when I finish H2H battles, I go looking for AARs on the same scenario/QB map to see how others may have handled things.

6 hours ago, scrappie said:

When evaluating the results for ladder competitions though it would be good if points were allocated on the basis of the victory point .differential between the 2 games.

I think knowing what the average VPD for any scenario or particular QB played across all the games that had ever been played would be an awesome thing to know.  Even though we may never know what that might be, the thing is, such a number actually does exist, albeit unbeknown to us (but no to God LOL!). I would prefer to rate the outcome of a battle (and hence the performance of both players) by comparing the VPD of a scenario/QB just played against that number rather than what might be otherwise indicated as the "victor" in the CM AAR 

Sites like The Blitz do make some attempts at recording W/L rates for various scenarios but I don't think the actual VPD is recorded, just the level of victory, which admittedly does give some insight in to what the actual VPD was (at least an upper/lower limit based on how CM AAR categorises draws, minor, tactical and total victories/defeats.  It is still curious to note that players looking for a suitable "balanced" scenario to play might consult a site like The Blitz and look for a scenario that appears "balanced" ie. equal spread of w/l across both sides.

I am really curious to give some of the alpha/beta concepts I have discussed a go.

As a first off, I want to run a bit of an experiment (actually more of a survey) that touches on a concept I have already spoken about, that needs your participation.

I have randomly plucked out an asymmetric CMBN QB map that I found in my CMBN QB Maps folder as a case in point.  What I will ask you to do is open up this QB map in the Scenario Editor, take note of the respective setup zones, the location of the Terrain Objectives and the terrain and other associated map details with respect to everything else on the map and determine what you think would be a "fair" Force Ratio (FR) to apply to a QB played on this map.  For what its worth, lets just assume the following QB parameters will be used:

Download Link (save to your QB Maps folder, open it in Scenario Editor): What FR for this QB Map.btt

Battle Length: 45 min

Date: July, 1944

Conditions: daylight, clear, dry

Rarity: Normal

Attacker force: US Army, mixed (no house rule restrictions on units)

Defender force: German Army, mixed (no house rule restrictions on units)

Victory points:

>80% destruction of Defender force: 200pts to Attacker

<50% destruction of Defender force: 100pts to Defender

>60% destruction of Attacker force: 200pts to Defender

<30% destruction of Attacker force: 100pts to Attacker

Single terrain objective: 100pts

Only house rule is no arty attacks on Attacker setup zones in first 10min.

While you are at it, you may as well also nominate what you think would be a suitable Force Size (FS) to use on this map. (That basically is the purchase points for the defender, in this case the Germans).

Here is what the deployment zones look like:

The Objective (worth 100 points):

A preview of the map looking NE from the defenders perspective:

Post your results in this thread.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Lt Bull

[slysniper]

Lt Bull

Just glanced over this and I really like some of the concept on how to decide who plays offence / defense and the the force size in a attack / defend map h2h match.

As a player who generally hates ME QB's and think they are about the most stupid way to play, I like how these rules are fair enough that a battle played this way should count in ladder play as far as I am concerned.

The best option I have found so far is any scenario that you play both sides in 2 battles at the same time against each other and then combine the score. winner is the player with the best combined score.

 

With this method, you can play any type of battle, get fights that have equipment that you would never purchase in a player purchase type situation and get to experience the battle from both sides, which give you insights as to how to approach the fight.

The only weakness in this type of method is you know what you are up against as to force makeup. But I find that is not a big deal, since most QB's  I can tell you what the opponent has within a few turns anyway. Since they will generally lean towards certain units and force makeups.

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by slysniper

[Lt Bull]

 

4 hours ago, slysniper said:

Just glanced over this and I really like some of the concept on how to decide who plays offence / defense and the the force size in a attack / defend map h2h match.

Thanks for letting me know.  I definitely have a sense of relief now that at least someone else besides myself seems to understand the concept and it's potential merits for use in the context of configuring CM QBs.  The concept still needs to be put through it's paces though.

4 hours ago, slysniper said:

The best option I have found so far is any scenario that you play both sides in 2 battles at the same time against each other and then combine the score. winner is the player with the best combined score.

Are you not referring to "mirrored battles"?  Even though mirrored battles aren't my thing (for reasons I have already given), I would agree that combining the scores of both battles is probably a better way to determine "who wins".

................

I have actually tried to road test the concept/method I have explained to some friends but explaining within a different concept/framework.  The example I have been using is to consider a situation (semi-hypothetical) where there are two jockeys, X and Y, who want to challenge each other to a horse race down a long straight, 1km long. However the two horses available for them to race are not exactly "equally matched", let alone identical.   Lets just refer to them as horse A and horse B. There is a problem.  Who gets to ride what horse in this race?  Both riders certainly have their own thoughts as to how the two horses rate against each other.  Rather than flip a coin, they both agree to follow the method I have described to settle things fairly. They both secretly write down the "weight handicap" they think needs to be applied to horse A such that both horses would essentially cross the finish line in a dead heat if both are ridden by equal jockeys.  Note that weight handicap could also be listed as a negative number, which means horse B would actually carry the weight handicap in the case where the jockey thinks it is actually horse B that needs to carry the weigh handicap. It might even be possible that both jockeys have opposing views as to which horse needs to be handicapped. Both jockeys reveal their handicaps.

Jockey X nominated a +15kg  handicap for horse A

Jockey Y nominated a +5kg handicap for horse A

The average handicap works out to be 10kg for horse A.  Its evident both jockeys agree Horse A is the more capable horse, more so by Jockey A than Jockey B.

Because Jockey Y nominated the smallest handicap for horse A (he thinks the horses are more closely matched than does Jockey X), Jockey Y gets to ride horse A (the horse both players consider the more capable horse) with a 10kg weight handicap, and Jockey X gets to ride horse B (the horse both jockeys thought was the lesser of the two horses).

Substitute the jockeys for CM QB players, substitute the race track for the QB map settings (from setup zones, Objectives, map layout etc), substitute horse A and horse B for "defender" and "attacker" roles  respectively and substitute the "weight handicap" for the Force Ratio (FR = attacker points/defender points) and you essentially have the method I have previously explained.

(NOTE: For the sake of a better analogy with the CM QB context, I did originally start writing my jockey/horse analogy using a "head start advantage" but changed it to a "weight handicap" because "weight handicaps" in horse racing are actually a thing.  A "head start advantage" would be the head start in metres given to the lesser horse, horse B, so that both horses essentially cross the finish line in a dead heat if both are ridden by equal jockeys. However considering a "head start advantage" probably is a better analogy to use to compare with the Force Ratio metric, only because mathematically increasing head start advantage benefits the lesser horse (horse B ) in the same way increasing Force Ratio benefits the attacker in a CM QBs.  Note that increasing weight handicap (applied to the more capable horse, horse A) would be equivalent to a decreasing the Force Ratio in a CM QB (benefiting the defender instead).

I am still kicking the tyres on this concept so if you can think of any fundamental flaws or problems with it that may be overlooked, let me know.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Lt Bull

[chi-chi]

Just hopping in to let @Lt Bullknow that you've described many of my complaints about mirrored engagements far more eloquently than I've been able to.

[Probus]

Thanks @Lt Bull,

  I appreciate the time you put in this to this

[Lt Bull]

On 10/27/2020 at 5:04 AM, chi-chi said:

Just hopping in to let @Lt Bullknow that you've described many of my complaints about mirrored engagements far more eloquently than I've been able to.

Although it always felt wrong from the start, it took me a while to think through the issues I had with them.  I don't want to put anyone off playing mirrored games but I don't think they are the one-stop-shop panacea to "ensuring fairness" when playing H2H battles, in particular ones that are rather asymmetric.

I have thankfully found a willing PBEM opponent to try this method out, so I will report back on how things go.  The most daunting thing for both players I think is determining a suitable force ratio (FR) for a particular QB map (and associated settings) just by looking at it through the Scenario Editor.  Players need to have and develop a "feel" for assessing map and terrain based advantages/disadvantage in terms of the relative FR.  It should be said that the players probably best prepared to assess a QB map and its parameters in terms of deciding on suitable FR balance would be those who have designed scenarios themselves.  They would contend with the exact same questions when creating/designing a balanced map/scenario.  I will admit that many players may not have ever even looked at the Scenario Editor, let alone scrutinised a QB map/Scenario and all the parameters to determine what FR would make for a balanced game, despite the fact that they would have developed some "feel" for it with experience over time playing H2H battles.  Players typically do this "assessment" of the map, objectives, conditions and forces etc whenever they size up and choose to play a scenario/QB anyway.  They just need to think in terms of FR.

One of the key aspects in this method is for both players to independently (and secretly) nominate their FR .  It may seem straight forward enough, but I haven't previously discussed how I suggest this can be done, despite already having a solution.  If it is safe to assume all players typically have access to say MS Word, then I would suggest that both players record their FR (and FS) on a Word document file then password protect the word file and email it to their opponent.  Once both players receive the respective emails with the file they can then exchange passwords and reveal their FR/FS. Viola!  There may be other ways as well but this one does the job.