Cold War Holiday Tournament!!!

[Probus]

@IanL, Ah no!  Where'd you go in the rankings?

[Bufo]

I don't know if my opponent is present here or not, but I had a surgery 2 days ago, and I wasn't/aren't able to play.

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

@IanL, Ah no!  Where'd you go in the rankings?

I dropped from first to eleventh.

[Suzuya]

15 hours ago, IanL said:

I dropped from first to eleventh.

Could be worse i went from first to 31st , I don't know how our scores ended up so different I only got a tactical victory in both battles compared to your total victory due to surrender but 700 to 8500 is quite a leap.

[Probus]

7 hours ago, Suzuya said:

Could be worse i went from first to 31st , I don't know how our scores ended up so different I only got a tactical victory in both battles compared to your total victory due to surrender but 700 to 8500 is quite a leap.

High Kurumba!  I bet they get things fixed.  We could rename the Tourny from the Holiday Tournament to the Proto-Tournament.

[IdontknowhowtodoX]

On 1/13/2023 at 7:46 AM, jackal263 said:

Thanks to @MeatEtrand to @Probusfor the support !

I finally managed to solve the problem... i didn't notice that also the email address was not saved in the login form... so filling with my email and again with password it finally worked and the file was sent... but i also launched Steam as Administrator (and i don't know if this also was relevant for my last succesful attempt)

@IdontknowhowtodoXFor now i sent back just one turn, tomorrow the second one.. it takes me more time than before, because i watch the turns with the new pc (old really but with a Nvidia graphic card), then i switch to the best pc for giving my orders (here i have the ATI Radeon that is terrible in the 'watch action' phase)

I have to say sorry once again since I missed your msg again . I'll have to check my message notification more often. Glad to know you are back. 

[jheinrichk]

so there's one minute left in each battle with my opponent.  we are not supposed finish the battle bc it'll mess up the scoring?  i really could use that last minute to deal damage tho...   

[IdontknowhowtodoX]

On 1/13/2023 at 7:46 AM, jackal263 said:

Thanks to @MeatEtrand to @Probusfor the support !

I finally managed to solve the problem... i didn't notice that also the email address was not saved in the login form... so filling with my email and again with password it finally worked and the file was sent... but i also launched Steam as Administrator (and i don't know if this also was relevant for my last succesful attempt)

@IdontknowhowtodoXFor now i sent back just one turn, tomorrow the second one.. it takes me more time than before, because i watch the turns with the new pc (old really but with a Nvidia graphic card), then i switch to the best pc for giving my orders (here i have the ATI Radeon that is terrible in the 'watch action' 

Man, it's my turn to have a computer breakdown. If I can get it fixed soon I'll finish my turn right away. If I can't, then I'll be AFK for at least two weeks. 

[A Canadian Cat]

On 1/15/2023 at 2:56 AM, jheinrichk said:

so there's one minute left in each battle with my opponent.  we are not supposed finish the battle bc it'll mess up the scoring?  i really could use that last minute to deal damage tho...   

Correct do not finish the game. The scenario points are in the area of 1000 points or so. The during play reported points seem to be up to 18 000 so finishing the game will loose both side a lot of points.

[jackal263]

3 hours ago, IdontknowhowtodoX said:

Man, it's my turn to have a computer breakdown. If I can get it fixed soon I'll finish my turn right away. If I can't, then I'll be AFK for at least two weeks. 

Hope you can fix it... but this battle is a bit unlucky for both... i'm playing on a backup pc, and clearly it was smoother on my primary pc. I hope that in case of a timeout, at least we can see the AAR screen

 

[Lethaface]

On 1/8/2023 at 4:48 PM, rocketman said:

Indeed worth checking out. For the about total of 15 turns I have played I'd say on average 5-10 times longer upload time compared to Dropbox using CM Helper. Downloading a trun is also much, much slower.

I'm not seeing that behavior here, as in that it isn't slower compared to non PBEM++ PBEMS. Maybe it's just a larger battle compared to what you normally play in PBEM? 
The worst I had was playing a huge CMFB battle (with ~2 brigades for the US side alone), that one could take minutes to save (and load). The time also goes up if you put in a lot of orders. 

Although one thing is that with PBEM++ the game is saved and then uploaded in one transaction, while with the dropbox/CMH the upload is taking place outside of CM application so that will always be faster.

[Lethaface]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:52 PM, BFCElvis said:

 

Correct. Surrendering completes the battle. If only 1 person in each battle has seen this notification the only way the other player could mess it up is by surrendering. 

Ok I was about to ask what happens when we can't get to the end of the time, but seems that we're good :D.
Both battles have been played mostly but we most probably won't get till 0:00 before the end of the round.

Automated ceasefire would be interesting solution if feasible I guess? 

[Lethaface]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:16 PM, Bufo said:

I don't know if my opponent is present here or not, but I had a surgery 2 days ago, and I wasn't/aren't able to play.

Hope all went well and wish you a speedy recovery!

[rocketman]

53 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I'm not seeing that behavior here, as in that it isn't slower compared to non PBEM++ PBEMS. Maybe it's just a larger battle compared to what you normally play in PBEM? 
The worst I had was playing a huge CMFB battle (with ~2 brigades for the US side alone), that one could take minutes to save (and load). The time also goes up if you put in a lot of orders. 

Although one thing is that with PBEM++ the game is saved and then uploaded in one transaction, while with the dropbox/CMH the upload is taking place outside of CM application so that will always be faster.

Nope, not at all larger than I usually play. It struck me how incredibly slow it was, to the point of thinking it was bugged. My PC and internet connection upstream/downstream can handle much heavier CM stuff so for me, for some weird reason, it is the fault of the PBEM system. Unfortunately

 

[BFCElvis]

52 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Automated ceasefire would be interesting solution if feasible I guess? 

Unfortunately,  no. The issue is that, during play, the running score is displayed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Combat Mission in game score. It only reflects casualties. Then, when the game ends....whether it is the end of turns, ceasefire or surrender.....the display matches the in game score. Because of that, people are incentivized to not finish the battle and have their points go down to the CM score. That is why I am asking that no one finish the battles.

The current idea is to have those casualty numbers being pushed out to be MUCH lower than they are now. Making them so low that the only way to get a higher score is to complete the battle and get the final CM score.

Charles explained it using a basketball analogy, saying that CM isn't like basketball where a basket is made and the score grows and keeps growing. CM isn't built that way. So, pushing out those kinds of numbers is impossible. 

 

[Lethaface]

38 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Unfortunately,  no. The issue is that, during play, the running score is displayed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Combat Mission in game score. It only reflects casualties. Then, when the game ends....whether it is the end of turns, ceasefire or surrender.....the display matches the in game score. Because of that, people are incentivized to not finish the battle and have their points go down to the CM score. That is why I am asking that no one finish the battles.

The current idea is to have those casualty numbers being pushed out to be MUCH lower than they are now. Making them so low that the only way to get a higher score is to complete the battle and get the final CM score.

Charles explained it using a basketball analogy, saying that CM isn't like basketball where a basket is made and the score grows and keeps growing. CM isn't built that way. So, pushing out those kinds of numbers is impossible. 

 

At least that way it won't incentivize not-finishing the game.
But there will still be a different ballpark scorewise for finished vs non-finished games, to stay with the basketball analogies ;-). Edit: and could produce similar issues for scenarios with relative high objective scores.

If somehow a game (with turns left) could be forced to end with a ceasefire, producing final ingame CM score like any game, it would eliminate the need for fiddling with scoring and the running score would be nice way to see how people are doing casualty wise only.

I imagined something like that could be the reason for the blank password requirement. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lethaface

[BFCElvis]

4 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

I imagined something like that could be the reason for the blank password requirement. 

The blank password thing was another workaround. (I hope this isn't too much inside baseball) 

Initially we used scenarios to test the tournament feature. Each player would receive the first scenario and begin the battle, as you would with a regular PBEM game. But, because we needed each player to play each side we couldn't leave it up to players to pick a single side with the file. In other words, both players could receive the opening scenario and select playing Blue. Instead of playing Blue in one game and Red in the other. So the conversation became about not leaving the choosing of the sides to the player. I found that if I uploaded an email file, instead of a scenario file, that it would work. So, I would open the scenario and select Blue as the side and leave the password blank. That meant the file each player selected already had the side chosen. And when the other player got the file from them it was the opposite side from the initial file they received. Because the PBEM ++ system eliminates the ability to cheap the in game password became redundant. 

And that’s how we ended up leaving the passwords blank.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

Nope, not at all larger than I usually play. It struck me how incredibly slow it was, to the point of thinking it was bugged. My PC and internet connection upstream/downstream can handle much heavier CM stuff so for me, for some weird reason, it is the fault of the PBEM system. Unfortunately

 

Sure is strange! Could it be your steam CM is on non-SSD disk while your other CMs have the save files on \documents which is on an SSD? Just thinking of an explanation.
 

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

The blank password thing was another workaround. (I hope this isn't too much inside baseball) 

Initially we used scenarios to test the tournament feature. Each player would receive the first scenario and begin the battle, as you would with a regular PBEM game. But, because we needed each player to play each side we couldn't leave it up to players to pick a single side with the file. In other words, both players could receive the opening scenario and select playing Blue. Instead of playing Blue in one game and Red in the other. So the conversation became about not leaving the choosing of the sides to the player. I found that if I uploaded an email file, instead of a scenario file, that it would work. So, I would open the scenario and select Blue as the side and leave the password blank. That meant the file each player selected already had the side chosen. And when the other player got the file from them it was the opposite side from the initial file they received. Because the PBEM ++ system eliminates the ability to cheap the in game password became redundant. 

And that’s how we ended up leaving the passwords blank.

Thanks for the explanation! The art of implementing new features with stuff that wasn't designed with those in mind

Also I have finally learned what .ema stands for  

 

[jheinrichk]

so im done with this round with only a minute to go in both battles and i should just wait for round 2 to start?  

[Chibot Mk IX]

On 12/31/2022 at 11:43 AM, Lethaface said:

To be honest I'm having quite some fun with the battle, getting to the point where my gambling tactics have paid off

My opponent in his USSR game didn't bet on the zergling rush and is now facing my hulldown TOW front.

 

My Zergling rush failed miserably.  I probably create a record. Before the end of turn 3 I lost all four tanks plus five full loaded BTRs (and all the platoon leaders are gone). My opponent put most of his firepower on one wing so that caught me in the open. On the other side, my AT-4 platoon was troubled by gun smoke and bad luck, so they only achieved 5 kills (1 tank+2 M150+2 M113) before expending 80+% of their ATGMs. I hit surrender after that.....

If gives another chance, I am thinking a deliberate, slow advance plan for Soviets player. Let the US player rush to the VP, Soviets will attack at the later half of the game and claim two of the VPs. That requires a firebase buildup on the left wing, and need smoke to cover the final assault. 

 

 

 

On 1/8/2023 at 9:51 AM, BFCElvis said:

We are advising everyone to NOT complete each battle. Play until there there is 1 turn (or as far as you can go) left in each battle. If everyone were to play their battles to completion all scores would match the end game AAR CM score. But, until then the higher scores will remain. Anyone looking to "game" the system would only need to stop playing to have a higher score than players who complete each battle. That's why we (and Matrix/Slitherine) have decided to post this advise. Matrix/Slitherine will be making a similar announcement on their forum and the Discord channel. For good or ill, only half of each pairing needs to be reached as long as 1 player stops playing toward the end. 

There is a tiny chance that a hot fix will be created before Round 1 is finished but I wouldn't count on it.

We understand (and share) anyone's unhappiness about this.  No one is happy about this. No one. 

Ahhh.... Sorry, didn't see this until now. I have hit surrender during my Soviet game before the new year eve. 

My US game also ends, my opponent hit surrender yesterday, so I guess we are even now.

Proud to be the first one finish Round 1...... 

[Lethaface]

25 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

My Zergling rush failed miserably.  I probably create a record. Before the end of turn 3 I lost all four tanks plus five full loaded BTRs (and all the platoon leaders are gone). My opponent put most of his firepower on one wing so that caught me in the open. On the other side, my AT-4 platoon was troubled by gun smoke and bad luck, so they only achieved 5 kills (1 tank+2 M150+2 M113) before expending 80+% of their ATGMs. I hit surrender after that.....

If gives another chance, I am thinking a deliberate, slow advance plan for Soviets player. Let the US player rush to the VP, Soviets will attack at the later half of the game and claim two of the VPs. That requires a firebase buildup on the left wing, and need smoke to cover the final assault.

I think the USSR force should do a move in force, although if there would have been enough good cover around the map I would probably also setup ATGMs and artillery fires / smoke before moving. 
But imo there wasn't good cover around the map to hide all my forces in good spots to move out from. So I went for the zerg rush too, but not with everything.

My RU plan was to rush the 3x infantry platoons to the objectives to the valley, spread out between the middle and right objectives.
Some empty BTRs mixed in to give weight (or rather act as decoys and drive in front of the BTR with the SPG-9 RRs ;-)). All AT-4s to be setup in the treeline over the whole breath of the map, along with the grenade launchers. I did puss out on the tanks because I expected enemy TOWS and tanks on the enemy ridgeline turn 1. 

I did lose 2/3 of a platoon and some empty BTRs in the rush, but the rest of the infantry made it to the valley / cover after the first turn and went on to secure 2 of the 3 objectives.
While the AT-4s did a big number on enemy tanks and TOW launchers. My tanks joined the duel from covered position but lost one T-55 against a M-48, so I let the AT-4s finish the job and they did (all enemy tanks and either all or 4/5 of the TOW launchers). Quite a number of m113 laden with infantry have also been brewed up by AT-4s.

Now moving on last objective with tanks, BTRs and some infantry, while calling in arty on enemy positions. I think my oppo has ~2 platoons of infantry left. But if they want to move to any objective they will have to expose to the AT front that already did a number on their bro's.

So my USSR rush worked fine. I have to add that my opponent is probably quite a bit less experienced playing CM/PBEMs. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lethaface

[Butschi]

Just a little feedback: This is probably a general issue with mirror matches but here it was really too one-sided for my taste. My opponent started with the Soviet side and this of course knew where the deployment zones are when he played his first turn as the US. Suffice to say that he had no issues with exploiting that knowledge by greeting my troops with a hail of mortar shells. I was pretty annoyed about this perceived lack of sportsmanship but then thought "Ok, no fair play in WW3, it seems, gloves off, I will return the favor." Only... Of course I couldn't do that anymore as the US player because I had played that side first and without prior knowledge of the Soviet side. And playing the Soviet side... well, the Soviets didn't have any mortars at the beginning...

[Lethaface]

29 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Just a little feedback: This is probably a general issue with mirror matches but here it was really too one-sided for my taste. My opponent started with the Soviet side and this of course knew where the deployment zones are when he played his first turn as the US. Suffice to say that he had no issues with exploiting that knowledge by greeting my troops with a hail of mortar shells. I was pretty annoyed about this perceived lack of sportsmanship but then thought "Ok, no fair play in WW3, it seems, gloves off, I will return the favor." Only... Of course I couldn't do that anymore as the US player because I had played that side first and without prior knowledge of the Soviet side. And playing the Soviet side... well, the Soviets didn't have any mortars at the beginning...

Another reason why the USSR forces must move out with speed, although I'm not particularly  fan of battles where forces start within LOS of eachother. 

However one thing some people might have missed is that you could switch troops between deployment zones. I think my opponent didn't realize this either. 

[IdontknowhowtodoX]

20 hours ago, jackal263 said:

Hope you can fix it... but this battle is a bit unlucky for both... i'm playing on a backup pc, and clearly it was smoother on my primary pc. I hope that in case of a timeout, at least we can see the AAR screen

 

Very unfortunately, the PC is dead. I have to buy a new one after at least 2 weeks. I'm sorry I can't continue playing right now. I'll start my round as soon as I get a new one.