Call for participants: Nordic Championships

[vskalex]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Mmm.. 6 bottles of wine, think about it.

Pour them all into a big bowl, add some strawberries to sweeten the taste, Sprite for the sparkles and some vodka for the kick. Then mix with crushed ice to keep it cool for hours.

Enough punch for a big party! Everybody's happy! ...except Winecape who's head just blew up! <hr></blockquote>

See Charl? This is the kind of barbaric treatment they want to give to your splendid wine. Bah, "Sweeten the taste" - Heretic! Trust me Charl, you'll never see that kind of treatment here in Sweden where we are at least a bit more civilized

Again, really overwhelmed just by the offer, a serious thank you.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Locking and/or restricting setup is a good way to force players to deal with specific tactical problems. Units should be locked and setup zones defined with a purpose in mind.

Agreed. The tactical problem should not be created with the restricting of the setup alone.

If the objective is to secure a bridge for a crossing then there is not many options to go about it. If the objective is to secure a specific location othen than a clear choke point(like a crossroads) and there are more than one routes to take then that should be reflected in the deployment.

I don't think you have to worry about that in the case of Wild Bill and Nabla.

From SP days I remember Wild Bills scenarios were the among the better ones.

The scenario I am testing was restricting to a certain extent, but I still have plenty of options.

I'll have to take your word for it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Nabla:

Think about a chess game. Now there are configurations which are trivial (patent solutions apply) and there are configurations which are highly challenging even for the best.

Yes. But you can predict and project the opponents intentions and moves by the gambit he chooses.

1. unit placement is an important part of CM

2. it is possible to have fixed initial positions which alienate the player from the game ("I would never have placed the units this way")

Where would the fun be in playing out Thermopylae or Cannae if you we restricted to the historical deployment and course of action ?

I'll think about this. Nothing is carved on the stone yet. Would this correspond to a definite perhaps?

For now.

[Treeburst155]

I think the side-specific briefings are very important when setups are locked or highly restricted. The restrictions need to be justified and explained to the player. The stage must be set for the battle. What has been going on during the last day or two with your specific troops? Why are they positioned like they are? Why are the setup zones so restrictive? Why are they locked? If the scenario designer can satisfy the player concerning these questions then the player won't mind the fixed setup.

Also, there are some limitations as to what types of situations can be simulated with CM. Nabla is working on a scenario idea now that is very difficult to implement with CM. Locked units will probably be a necessity although he is trying to come up with a way to avoid it. If he cannot then he must lock the units in good positions for the situation. These positions will be based on his best judgment, which may not be someone else's idea of what is best. In effect, the player will take over command of Nabla's forces on turn one. The deployment of your new command having been directed by your predecessor, Nabla.

I think this is a good way to look at a locked setup. Look at it as a new command assignment you have just arrived at. In the setup phase you are taking a tour of your troops deployment and familiarizing yourself with your new situation.

Treeburst155 out.

[Nabla]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Nabla:

[qb]Think about a chess game. Now there are configurations which are trivial (patent solutions apply) and there are configurations which are highly challenging even for the best.

Yes. But you can predict and project the opponents intentions and moves by the gambit he chooses.

1. unit placement is an important part of CM

2. it is possible to have fixed initial positions which alienate the player from the game ("I would never have placed the units this way")

Where would the fun be in playing out Thermopylae or Cannae if you we restricted to the historical deployment and course of action ?

[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Come on, relax

First, I've been testing this particular scenario we are talking about and I can tell you that making decisisions in this game is just so painful. Second, since we are doing something new here, I've sent the scenario to both WBW and Treeburst155 and they will ultimately decide whether this particular scenario will be included in the tournament or not. Third, it is just one scenario we are talking about here. Luck and initial conditions have a role in CM, but the best players should stand out. The least that will happen is that you will experience feelings of joy and frustration

We guarantee that gameplaying will not be reduced to mechanics. Quite the opposite, we design situations which require most painful decisions to be made.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Nabla ]</p>

[Ali]

Just got my right to post!

So you can now call A.S as ALI.

My email is ali.salo@tietoenator.com and I'm from Finland

Ali

:cool:

[Jarmo]

BTW, just in case someone didn't get it, the wine punch thing was a joke...

[Treeburst155]

Welcome aboard, Ali!! I've updated the final list on page 3 with your email address.

I still need an address for Pixie.

Jarmo,

We know you were not kidding about making punch out of the wine. For this reason I will be removing 500 points of your units from all your scenarios. I had to do the same to Kiwi Joe in an earlier tournament for threatened desecration of the wine. Unfortunately, he still won!

[Juha Keratar]

Hmm. Just checking: if I understood correct, everyone plays 2-3 games with allies? Looking at section III schedule, I seem to have four games out of five with them.

Personally I have no problem with this, if the scoring system isn't compromised.

-Lunael

[Treeburst155]

Yikes!! That should not be! Let me investigate that problem. It's probably something I did, but it might be a bug in Nabla's program. I'll be working on this. Thanks, Juha!!

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

There are many instances of this problem. I'm working on it.

Treeburst155 out.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I think the side-specific briefings are very important when setups are locked or highly restricted. The restrictions need to be justified and explained to the player. The stage must be set for the battle. What has been going on during the last day or two with your specific troops? Why are they positioned like they are? Why are the setup zones so restrictive? Why are they locked? If the scenario designer can satisfy the player concerning these questions then the player won't mind the fixed setup.

Also, there are some limitations as to what types of situations can be simulated with CM. Nabla is working on a scenario idea now that is very difficult to implement with CM. Locked units will probably be a necessity although he is trying to come up with a way to avoid it. If he cannot then he must lock the units in good positions for the situation. These positions will be based on his best judgment, which may not be someone else's idea of what is best. In effect, the player will take over command of Nabla's forces on turn one. The deployment of your new command having been directed by your predecessor, Nabla.

I think this is a good way to look at a locked setup. Look at it as a new command assignment you have just arrived at. In the setup phase you are taking a tour of your troops deployment and familiarizing yourself with your new situation.

That sounds reasonable. And realistic.

How's this for an idea (unless it has not been floated around before): Separate scoring for mission and separate scoring for actual combat. That would be effected by mission dependable variable pt value VL's. The scen is built with VL's at 0pt. Both sides get variable points according to the turn they hold/capture them. Say, the attacker gets 100pts for a VL if he captures by start +20 turns. After that the VL is worth 0pts. For the defender a VL is worth 50pts until start +20 turns, after that they will be worth 300 (or 0) pts.

Verification by a screen shot taken from the appropriate turn.

These VL values would be totally mission dependable and if the attacker has orders that places greater value to the VP's than the defenders mission it might come to pass that the defender would get points for not holding on to the flags at all while the attacker would go for the flags and ignore the defenders forces.

The only problem would be the integration of these points to the CM score. At 0pts the VL's would not factor in when the game engine calculates the points so all points would pertain to kills and losses. That would mean that a victory in the CM level would turn into a defeat if the mission score would be 0pts for one player while it could be Xpts for the other player. So the player would not know if he won or lost until the actual score gets posted.

Would this impose too much extra work on the tourney master ?

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Nabla:

Come on, relax

I am relaxed.

As you may have guessed I have a thing or two against ready made scens. Has to do with atypical tactics and doctrine designed for a non-CM army I use.

Luck and initial conditions have a role in CM, but the best players should stand out. The least that will happen is that you will experience feelings of joy and frustration

"Oh, goody. As I suspected there was a killer assets in that location and t creamed my assets the way I feared." ?

We guarantee that gameplaying will not be reduced to mechanics. Quite the opposite, we design situations which require most painful decisions to be made.

Hakkaa päälle !!!

[Treeburst155]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

"Oh, goody. As I suspected there was a killer assets in that location and t creamed my assets the way I feared." ? <hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily. Hehehe....

Your idea about variable flag value would be very difficult to deal with on my end. The tourney is far too big for me to deal with all the screenshots sent at various times, manual figuring of scores, etc.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

The scheduling glitch is in the program. The goal of the program is to do the following:

1)no player sees any scenario more than once

2)every player plays every other player once

3)Allied/Axis duties are split evenly

4)Through the course of the five scenarios each player will find his scores compared to the others in his section two times each.

We seem to have fallen short on #3 and #4. Nabla may be able to correct this. #3 is not that important, it just gives players variety. #4 is VERY important with SMALL tournaments, which this is not. It would just be better if you did not find your score compared with the same players in your section all the time. We would like to have it so each player in your section plays the same side of a scenario as you do two times. This may not be possible however.

If there were only six people in the whole tournament this would be a definite problem. As it is with this tourney I can determine the median from 24 games if I include the Nordic Wannabee games. Being compared with the same players in your section several times is not nearly as significant when there are so many games to get the median from. Even 12 games is enough to minimize this.

Treeburst155 out.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Great work lads. Schedule and all done.

My only questions now are (sorry if I have missed it among all posts...):

- Whom do we get scenarios from?

- Whom do we send results and aar's to?

Kniven, Gaffeln, Skeden - Sweden Sweden Sweden!

[Nabla]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

The scheduling glitch is in the program. The goal of the program is to do the following:

1)no player sees any scenario more than once

2)every player plays every other player once

3)Allied/Axis duties are split evenly

4)Through the course of the five scenarios each player will find his scores compared to the others in his section two times each.

We seem to have fallen short on #3 and #4.

<hr></blockquote>

To my knowledge the solution I have implemented now is optimal so that #1 and #2 are guaranteed and #3 and #4 should be fulfilled as well as possible. There's no problem with the program, the algorithm is implemented correctly, but I will examine again whether the algorithm is indeed optimal. I will get back to you on this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

If there were only six people in the whole tournament this would be a definite problem. As it is with this tourney I can determine the median from 24 games if I include the Nordic Wannabee games. Being compared with the same players in your section several times is not nearly as significant when there are so many games to get the median from. Even 12 games is enough to minimize this.<hr></blockquote>

This is a good thing.

[WineCape]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Mmm.. 6 bottles of wine, think about it.

Pour them all into a big bowl, add some strawberries to sweeten the taste, Sprite for the sparkles and some vodka for the kick. Then mix with crushed ice to keep it cool for hours.

Enough punch for a big party! Everybody's happy! ...except Winecape who's head just blew up! <hr></blockquote>

Jarmo,

If you win this tourney, I'll send 6 bottles containing some of the wines as noted below in the quote.

Cheers!

Charl

---------------

"Amarone" is a dark, deep garnet wine, with odours of nuts and spice and dense fruit jam flavours that call to mind dried figs and cherry preserve. The body is warm, unctuous, Port-like, conveying a satiny impression of sweetness that comes not from sugar but from glycerine.

-- Victor Hazan in "Italian Wine" (1983)

* Bolding mine

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Charl, if one of the Finns win, you can just send him some bottles of finkel*, they will not be able to tell the difference.

* finkel is the nasty, smelly leftovers you get when brewing home-grown Vodka.

Treeburst155, will the Nordic Championship show up on your tournament webpage?

[Jarmo]

Nevermind, I suck at scenarios, no hope of winning.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Not necessarily. Hehehe....

Well, Nabla did say "you will experience feelings of joy and frustration."

Your idea about variable flag value would be very difficult to deal with on my end. The tourney is far too big for me to deal with all the screenshots sent at various times, manual figuring of scores, etc.

Can't say I am surprised.

The variable values would add an extra dimenision to the game at tourney level if the scens were mission oriented. It would be easier to determine if the mission was a failure or a success. If the mission was to take an objective and take as few casualties as possible and the mission was accomplished within the timeframe set but with heavy casualties the victory level would not be as good as it would be with lighter casualties.

[Nabla]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nabla:

There's no problem with the program, the algorithm is implemented correctly, but I will examine again whether the algorithm is indeed optimal. I will get back to you on this.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, there seems to be a problem with the algorithm. Back to the drawing board Forget the schedule for now, I'll get back to you once I've coded the correct solution.

[Joseph Porta]

Treeburst, if you still need Pixie's address he sent me this :

Pixie : vp.ehoniemi@hushmail.com

See if you can get in touch with him there.

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Joseph Porta ]</p>

[Treeburst155]

Thanks, Joseph.

Stefan,

The Nordic Championship will not have a web page because all game results are top secret until the very end. Only the scenario designers and WineCape will know the results as they come in. If you will notice, the Wild Bill tourney has no results posted. Only results from the older tournaments are posted as they come in. The Wild Bill page actually serves no purpose. I created it because I originally intended to use the old tournament scoring system.

At the end of the "regular season" (before the playoff series) all game results, tourney points, and AAR points will be posted; and the AARs made public. At this point I will probably create a Nordic Championships Results page.

It was asked how games will be passed out, etc.. I will post an explanation shortly. All will be perfectly clear.

[Treeburst155]

Below is a list of all participants, separated into the four sections, complete with email addresses. This is your Contact List. You might want to copy your section info for your convenience.

You must take it upon yourselves to arrange games with those in your section. Once you have arranged to start a game one of you must email me. At that point I will pass out the game files for that match. The German player will always start the game. He will receive the .cmb file, the general briefing, and the German briefing in separate files. At the same time the Allied player will receive the general briefing and the Allied briefing. The briefings are separated from the .cmb so people can't peek at the other guy's info.

When the German player starts the PBEM game with the .cmb file he will find himself in the setup phase and the game begins. All passwords will be pre-assigned by me. Your password for a game will always be at the end of your side-specific briefing.

Here is your Contact List:

SECTION ONE

Juha Ahoniemi (Finland)- juha.ahoniemi@mail.htk.fi

Ari Maenpaa (Finland)- ari.maenpaa@tietoenator.com

Topi (Finland)- tmikkola@cc.hut.fi

Heibis (Norway)- jens.heiberg@jbv.no

vskalex (Sweden)- vskalex@hotmail.com

Ghost Dog (Sweden)- ted.malmquist@telia.com

SECTION TWO

Tuomas (Finland)- tnummela@cc.hut.fi

Jarmo (Finland)- jarmo.laakso@tintti.net

Sesam (Finland)- matti_vesanen@hotmail.com

Dr Alimantado (Sweden)- jeschko-edberg@home.se

Patrik (Sweden)- patrik@kramgo.com

Dragoon19 (Denmark)- tbrath@e-mail.dk

SECTION THREE

tero (Finland)- is tero.leppanen@pp2.inet.fi

tss (Finland)- tommi.syrjanen@hut.fi

Juha Keratar (Finland)- lunael@hotmail.com

Stefan Fredrikson (Sweden)- stefan.fredrik@telia.com

Von Heinrich (Sweden)- henrikohlin@hotmail.com

Loke (Norway)- pgkeihl@chello.no

SECTION FOUR

PasiN (Finland)- Pasi_Nyman@hotmail.com

Pixie (Finland)- vp.ehoniemi@hushmail.com

AS (Ali)(Finland)- ali.salo@tietoenator.com

Mattias (Sweden)- schuertzen@hotmail.com

Romeoman (Sweden)- romeoman772000@yahoo.com

Joseph Porta (Norway)- Hackett@online.no

If you choose to write an AAR for a completed game you must send it to me. I will record your AAR points and forward the AAR to the scenario designers. Do not post AARs to this thread!! We must preserve FOW.

Don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have. I'll be along to answer them.

Treeburst155 out.