"Wild Bill's Rumblings Of War"- A Tournament

[JonS]

damn! :confused:

[Subvet]

Awwww crap. It would have been fun, I'm sure. I was really hoping to get in on this one. I guess I might as well flush what I have got done as far as my answers to the questions go eh? Sad.

[WineCape]

Dear Mike and "Stars" Participants as well as WineCape Tourney I&II Participants,

Finally got some access to this forum, here is my e-mail in full send via Wild Bill:

I came back today (Sunday), just officiated a gruelling professional soccer match near Johannesburg (1,200km from home), feeling drained emotionally as well as physically, to find that everything has collapsed in the mean time!! :-/

I heard the news via 2 emails from some caring folk earlier today. Though of late I'm also receiving emails intermittently, no doubt being in Africa is of no top priority for any company organising internet networks/cables to this continent. Therefor, I might have missed crucial emails from Mike and others as to this current state of affairs.

*This* is as NEWS to me as to you and the rest of the WineCape/Invitational participants, no doubt! And I have not the slightest clue as what might have happened, obviously via some email exchanges between Treeburst and participant(s). Though I could most probably guess as to why he wants/did pull out, I am out of the guessing/assuming game with *this* Forum for sure!

I have not as of yet received any word from Treeburst, and await his version of what transpired. (I've emailed him today)

I might persuade him to re-consider, which I'll certainly try to do. I would hate to loose Treeburst in a personal as well CM capacity. Mike Meinecke (Treeburst155) is a boon to this CM forum, FULLSTOP!

Rest assured, I'm still fully committed to all the current Tourney's and their prizes as well as your Rumblings of War tourney to-be Bill. You/current participants have my word. As to the future of the Invitational/WineCape Tourneys, please all, just be at "standby" for the time being until I've spoken to Treeburst. Finish your games that are already underway.

Now lets see if I can play the referee again in a non-outdoor activity ...

Regards from Africa and stay well all,

Charl Theron (WineCape)

Stellenbosch, RSA.

[von Lucke]

Unfortunate. The parameters for this Tourney looked so promising too...

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Bummer (even though I do not think I would have qualified).

I think Treeburt155's comment about mixing historical- and "just game"-players has its merits.

If I were to be in a tournament, I would prefer preset scenarios, or computer-bought units, before buying your own units.

The reason being, I do not know enough about WW2- TO&E and -tactics to get it historically correct.

[Treeburst155]

OK, I've had time to cool off now. Here's the deal. I can continue to run this tournament as long as there are some rules in place which are listed below.

1) Gamey TACTICS will not be tolerated. Who determines what is gamey? I, the right honorable Judge Treeburst155 determine what is gamey.

2) How do you sue a player for gamey play? You describe the problem briefly and you send me movie files with your password. If I agree with you then the offending player will be found guilty and sentenced.

3) The sentence? An automatic 80-20 loss for that game.

This will virtually insure that the game engine is not taken advantage of and will protect historical players so they can enjoy their games. I should warn everyone that I am very strict on what I consider gamey, but I will not make rash judgements. I will look hard at as many movie files as necessary from both players before I pass judgement. If you don't think you know a gamey tactic when you see one or order one you will probably learn the hard way. Ignorance of "the law" is no excuse. On the other hand, there should be no hard feelings directed at someone convicted of gamey play. Everyone has different views on what is gamey. If you are the victim of gamey play you will get your 80 point victory. Don't be unkind to the convict. He paid the price with his Major Defeat.

So, this tourney is back on track. I just needed time to cool off. I should have cooled of BEFORE I cancelled this tournament.

With no force picking and the rules above I think this tourney will go rather smoothly. I'm sorry for all the commotion.

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

Treeburst155 out.

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Good to hear!

I really hope I get in, so that I will know if I play "gamey" or not

[Panzer Leader]

Hooray! Now, I just have to hope I make it in!

[Juardis]

Treeburst, thanks for the update. As has already been seen from the various "what is gamey" threads around, you'll get different answers depending on who you ask. I don't consider too many tactics gamey (force purchases are not gamey, they can at worst be ahistorical, but the purchases themselves are not gamey), but it appears that I could be labelled gamey if my opponent (or you) considers it gamey. For example, using flamethrowers for area denial is something you consider gamey. Now granted, I've only encountered this tactic once, but I did not consider it gamey. How does this take advantage of a limitation in the game engine? It may indeed be using a force ahistorically, but I cannot see where it is taking advantage of the engine.

Anyways, I don't get all pissy about gamey behavior (publicly anyway) and I hope to not be accused of such myself. Therefore, as much as I want to play Wild Bill's scenarios, I withdraw my application. I probably would not have been accepted anyways, but just in case. Good luck. And if I were you, I'd give a list of what you consider gamey since you're admittedly stricter than normal.

[Enoch]

Mike,

glad to hear that you've reconsidered. I was looking forward to possibly participating in this tournament.

On another note. You mentioned earlier that participants in the tourney might not attack or defend an equal number of times. I think I have a solution to this problem if you are interested. The solution would result in each participant attacking in four scenerios and defending in four with no one palying the same scenerio twice.

Let me know if you are interested or if you've already figured this out.

Again, glad to hear that you've reconsidered.

[Frenchy]

Glad to see you reconsidered. If I make it, I look forward to the tourney.

As a suggestion, once you have picked your participants, I'd send an email to each one re-stating the rules and have them reply. Their reply would be their acknowledgement of agreeing to the rules.

[Treeburst155]

Jaurdis,

Several things have to happen in order to be convicted of "gamey play".

1) You have to do something that is considered by some to be gamey.

2) The actual person you are playing must consider it gamey enough to complain about.

3) I must agree with that person.

Then, and only then would you be convicted of gamey play. A few will get caught by this rule even though they are innocent of "gamey intent"; but there's no other way.

My advice to players is to think about the orders they give. Role play as the commander. Would you order that AT team, crew, etc. to do that in real life? Would they obey?

I will post a list of POTENTIALLY gamey tactics that probably should be avoided just to stay on the safe side. Gamey tactics are definitely a gray area. Avoid the tactics I list and you will stay well out of the potentially deadly gray area. It's simple really. Enter the gray area at your own risk. Your opponent may not mind, and even if he does, I may not agree with him; BUT, you are taking a risk.

To be convicted of "gamey play" is no more serious than a personal foul in basketball. You pay the price and the incident is forgotten. The price is steep just so players are careful, thereby preventing MANY problems.

Enoch,

Texas Toast has me squared away on how to pass out the maps and split the attack/defend duties equally. Thanks for the offer though.

We will have to limit the tourney to 24 players and 7 scenarios according to Texas Toast. Evidently, to have 27 players (3x9)as I had originally planned would require nine scenarios rather than the eight I thought. We will use the extra scenario as a playoff scenario along with a Rune scenario I have in mind that has excellent replayability. Judging from the rate of play of the other tourneys I think 7 games per player is plenty.

[JonS]

yipee!! :cool:

[Wild Bill Wilder]

I guess I've been lucky. The PBEM and online games I have been able to play have never been plagued with this illness called "gaminess."

It is a game, of course, and as such is in danger of becoming a "win at any cost" type of situation.

Well, that is what the real battles were all about.

Still...

The use of men and/or material in a method totally unrealistic would certainly take away from the good feeling of a "firefight."

I would hope that all participants feel the same way I do. Am I asking too much?

Let's have fun and kill the enemy!

I hope I can avoid in the design process the potential for this kind of thing.

Juardis, I am disappointed that you will not be participating. I would love to have seen you involved.

Eventually, you'll all have a shot at these.

After the tourney, they will be issued for public consumption.

Treeburst, we are all glad to see you back with your armor plating in place

Wild Bill

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Wild Bill Wilder ]

[Treeburst155]

OK, here's my list of POTENTIALLY gamey tactics. I will send this list to all tourney participants when the time comes. Now I'm going to move on to the more enjoyable aspects of getting ready for this tournament.

POTENTIALLY Gamey Tactics-Use at your own risk

1) Setting fire to "squares" or buildings unoccupied by enemy troops, ESPECIALLY to deny a VL or covered access to one.

2) Advancing large formations along the map edge.

3) Scouting with AT teams, crews of knocked out vehicles or guns, MG teams, and anybody who is "low" on ammo.

4) Recon with light (cheap) vehicles well into enemy territory.

5) Exposing AT teams SOLEY for the purpose of drawing enemy fire.

6) Ordering vehicle and gun crews to participate in an attack or hunt down enemy teams or spotters.

7) Rushing infantry straight at a known enemy position (especially through cover) with no supporting/suppressive fire.

8) Last minute flag rushes to acquire or contest a VL when you couldn't hold it if the game were to go another turn.

These are the tactics I will be concerned about that MIGHT cause you a Major Loss. Avoid them and you are safe. Use them and you have stepped into the risky gray area of "Potentially Gamey Tactics". You will be subjecting yourself to your opponent's opinion of gamey tactics and possibly my own if he complains.

GOLDEN RULES:

Protect (hide) your AT teams until they have a target.

Use half squads and spare HQs for scouting/recon.

Keep your vehicle/gun crews alive.

It's really not too difficult to play the game as BTS intended. Use common sense and role play as the commander. Question your motives when you give orders. Take care of the men under your command as best you can.

[Juardis]

A suggestion for you treeburst. Use badcos endgame randomizer to put an end to the VL rush on the last turn. +/-5 turns ought to put an end to that tactic, but its hard to say without knowing how many turns there will be. Good luck.

[Treeburst155]

Those of you interested in this tournament should read the new "Invitational Tourney" thread. The rules against gamey play are not going over too well. These are the same rules this tournament will be using. We might as well find out now if you 65 or so applicants can handle playing under these rules. All I'm tyring to do is stop problems before they arise. The rules are just guidelines for handling troops in a realistic manner. None of them are set in stone. Let me hear what you think. If the gamey rules are unpopular I will try to think of another solution to my tourney mananger problems.

[Enoch]

I think that because of the pre-made nature of the scenerios used in this tourney these problems should be a little less common.

1) Setting fire to "squares" or buildings unoccupied by enemy troops, ESPECIALLY to deny a VL or covered access to one.

I think this problem might be minimized if the scenerios used in the tourney don't include many flamethrower units.

2) Advancing large formations along the map edge.

Some map edge movement is inevitable, unless the maps are pretty large. As long as someone doesn't move half their forces up the edge it doesn't bother me much.

3) Scouting with AT teams, crews of knocked out vehicles or guns, MG teams, and anybody who is "low" on ammo.

I have no problem with these except the low ammo one. Sometimes a squad runs low on ammo (heck everyone might run low on ammo) I don't think this should preclude them from leading a platoon. They still have some ammo just not a lot.

4) Recon with light (cheap) vehicles well into enemy territory.

No problem. Again though this can be minimized by not having Jeeps and Kubelwagens availible in the tourny scenerios.

5) Exposing AT teams SOLEY for the purpose of drawing enemy fire.

I might use one AT team to draw the attention of a unit while another sneaks into place, but I wouldn't expose a team just to draw fire for the fun of it.

6) Ordering vehicle and gun crews to participate in an attack or hunt down

enemy teams or spotters.

I don't know that I've ever done this but I could see using a crew of a knocked out vehicle to take out a bazooka team.

7) Rushing infantry straight at a known enemy position (especially through cover) with no supporting/suppressive fire.

CM does seem to give too much of a bonus to fast moving squads. But, there are times where you want to close with the enemy as quickly a possible. I suppose that most times I do this I do have supporting fire.

8) Last minute flag rushes to acquire or contest a VL that you know you can't

hold for another minute if the game were to continue.

End game randomization would seem to take care of this.

Overall I think I could play with these rules. It's your tourney so you do what you want. If people don't like them then they don't have to be in the tourney. I do think some of these problems have solutions other than rules.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

[The_Capt]

Hey Treeburst,

Don't let anybody push you around. You are taking time and effort to set this thing up so you make the rules and we'll live by em.

Anybody who can't can simply play elsewhere.

For instance, I think FT against houses when attacking is kosher, when used as spec fire but if you say no go. The I will live by it.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Kingfish]

Count me in. Although I don't agree with rule #1, if I can't win a game without it I shouldn't be here.

[Frenchy]

Rules are rules...I'll abide by them. I may disagree with one or two, but that's tough. Gotta have parameters so everyone is on a level playing field.

[Treeburst155]

The thing to realize about these "gamey" rules is that they are NOT concrete. Every situation is different. The "rules" are merely guidelines to help players determine when they are stepping into the gray area. They are also to be used as talking points for pre-game discussion with your opponents. I would probably break several of these rules if I felt doing so IN A GIVEN SITUATION was realistic. That however is easy for me to say since I know how the judge thinks.

The best way to avoid disputes surrounding gamey play is to take the time to get to know your opponent's views on the subject. Failure to do this contributed to the problems the Invitational Tourney is having. You will be playing people you have never played before so you have to get acquainted with each other. You may find you can throw out ALL the gamey tactics guidelines I've spelled out above if you have an easy going opponent.

Again, the gamey rules are just guidelines for players. They spell out what you SHOULD talk about with your opponents before you begin playing. Your opponents will not complain to me if you come to a mutual understanding regarding the tactics spelled out above. Communication before the game begins is the key!

[imported_Wildman]

In the Pool, Elvis just used 14" artillery in July 44. Its killing me and REALLY think that's gamey!

Plus the git won't number files, the things I put up with.

[Treeburst155]

Ya gotta love the big arty, eh? Now not numbering files is way out of line IMO. That's gamey!!

[Treeburst155]

A Better, More Liberal Approach to Gamey Play

Rather than me putting myself in the position of possibly having to pass judgment on gamey tactics, which could cause me lots of grief; I will make it the players' responsibility to chat with each other about the issue BEFORE they begin a game. If you know where your opponent stands on the items in the "gamey list" I posted above then you will have no problems with each other.

This means I will not entertain any complaints concerning gamey tactics. From a tourney management point of view there is no such thing. You have the list which spells out problem areas. It's up to you to talk through the list with your opponents. The list is ONLY a tool to help players understand each other better before they begin a game. There are no RULES regarding gamey play anymore. In fact, you and your opponent could agree to an "anything goes" fight if you want. Just be aware of what that means and know also that I will not hear ANY complaints concerning tactics used in these tourney games. This is the last I will say on this subject. This is the way it will be. I'll send the "gamey list" out to all the players when the tourney begins so they can print it out for quick reference while they chat about the issue with their opponents. Now I am moving on to more pleasant activities.

I've just begun testing one of the scenarios with SuperTed. The briefing really gets you in the mood and the map is beautiful and that's all I can say, except that whoever gets into this tourney is lucky indeed.