CM:BO Invitational PBEM Tourney of "Stars" …. Part II

[WineCape]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WineCape:

SuperTed as well as Treeburst155,

Please e-mail me so that we can discuss this (if possible) in private.

SuperTed, I respect your descision, even so, I would still like to hear your side in detail, via e-mail that is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post above refers only to SuperTed's withdrawal Mike/Ted.

[Treeburst155]

It took me so long to write my latest that SuperTed slipped in his post in the meantime. This is exactly the type of thing I am worried about. SuperTed won't be the last to drop out if this thing isn't reorganized IMO. If you could see the email I've received concerning this tournament over the last several weeks you would probably think seriously about calling the whole thing off if you were me. It was an interesting idea BUT, that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

[TexasToast]

As someone who has nearly completed five tough games already, I would hate to see them all thrown out and have to start over again. Why not let the completed or in-progress games stand if applicable?

I guess since I'm not always completely sure exactly what is gamey or ahistorical, I would have to be relegated to the competition bracket, to be devoured by the sharks.

Overall, this has been interesting and fun and educational for me, even if it ends right now. Coordinating games between twenty people with different goals and attitudes is certainly a monumental task, and possibly impractical in the end. I salute you for taking it on in the first place.

Standing by for further instructions.

[WineCape]

Dear Mike and all "Stars" participants,

In the interest of being democratic, I have put the following serious question on the ballot:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you agree with Treeburst155 (Tourney Manager) to split this Invitational Tourney into 2 sections so as to facilitate better the differences between historical/competition players?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I need votes here gentleman, either a YES or NO. And I need them quickly, from all participants.

Treeburst, could you (since you have all players' e-mails in your possession) e-mail the combatants and request their votes to be posted here on this thread? Could you also briefly just outline to the players in your e-mail what have been said as well as the implications of a YES vote?

All participants = 1 vote

Tourney Manager = 1 vote

Me = 1 vote

Regards and awaiting votes urgently,

Charl Theron

[WineCape]

To clarify:

A YES vote =

all existing PBEM games/scores will be scratched/annulled, tourney subdivided into 2 categories

A NO vote =

Status quo of the Invitational

[TexasToast]

I am not opposed to the tourney being split if it makes people happy (YES), but I do not see any reason to throw out games that are already completed, or are underway, between those that end up in the same bracket.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

I see nothing wrong with the tourney the way it right now - maybe some guys are more sensitive than others?

But surely its not so serious as to make such drastic changes?

CDIC

[Treeburst155]

Texas Toast makes sense. If the tourney is split, and you end up in the same tourney as people you've already played or are playing there is no reason to throw the games out. We would keep games in such instances.

[Treeburst155]

I'll keep a running tally of the votes:

SPLIT TOURNEY

Treeburst155

DON'T CARE

Texas Toast

STATUS QUO

CapitalistDogInChina

What we do here is dependent on the majority view. Your vote has a definite impact. It will help me just to see who votes for what.

I would also like to make it clear that there is nothing wrong in my book with highly competitive ladder style play. I like playing like this on occasion too. There is no right or wrong, good or bad here. I just think the mixing of the player types is going to cause BIG problems. So, cast your vote here! Polls are open until 1100 hours on Monday (GMT-6).

[John Kettler]

WineCape,Treeburst155 and troops,

I'm confused, and becoming moreso! I came into this Tournament from an admittedly sheltered CM existence, having played a few hotseat games, but mostly QBs and a couple of scenarios vs. Kingfish, a most formidable foe.

Since we let the computer pick the troops after setting the basic parameters, we've never had the problems I've repeatedly encountered in this Tournament.

Since getting into this competition, I've been exposed to tactical approaches and troop selection practices which blew my mind. I've learned firsthand how little I knew about effective negotiation and communication, let alone the ins and outs of 40 some odd German squad types and their oft terrifying military capabilities.

My impression, having been the far fewer optioned Allies in every game so far, is that Allied infantry capabilities are undermodeled, especially in terms of sustained fire from MGs

(Vickers in particular) and in the relative firepower and cover busting of the .50 cal MG.

Allied rifle grenades are uncommon, but German squads typically have a least one 'faust, which can be used vs. infantry.

I'd also add that the Allied units generally are undergunned in the 40m range. Those "missing SMGs" would be a huge help when facing the Germanic hordes lavishly armed with MP-40s and/or StG-44s. At that range a 10 man Brit para squad doesn't generate a whole lot more FP than a 7 man VS squad. I tried to start a thread on the relative weakness of Allied frag grenade (large casualty radius, seemingly not depicted) modeling, as opposed to the far more limited radius German concussion types. That went nowhere.

We read of American units having two and even three BARs, of being loaded for bear with extra weapons. Mine have one and standard TO&E. There are no separately buyable Bren teams. Contrariwise, the 2 x LMG German squads IRL often had only one, sometimes no LMG. Yet, the FJs and SS mot. Panzer Grenadiers, both favored troop types, come with two every time. The SS boys also have StG-44s, giving them reach that SMGs don't have but retaining considerable close-in FP. I'd further observe that the Germans have a range of shielded autocannon in towed and mech configs, to which the Allies have an unshielded Bofors. Since AA

assets were progressively released to Allied forward units, the Allies are once again deprived of an arrow in their tactical quiver.

A .50 may not be much in CM, but a quad would get the German player's attention.

In short, because of modeling deficiencies and by allowing the Germans to routinely use less

common troop types, you fundamentally skew the

game and force the Allied players to do things their real life counterparts didn't and buy airborne for what should be grunt work. I think, given the above, that Allied fire support cost and/or infantry cost need to be reduced. The Allies, the masters of war production, are losing the contest in terms of firepower fielded per point spent. I've got the casualties to prove it.

Maybe I'm just a lousy tactician, but countering a foe who can field hordes of heavily armed units in a variety of types and tactical flavors seems to take not just tactical brilliance but well chosen fire and/or armor support. Loss of either can be fatal.

My loss to CapDog was the direct result of his killing two potent Crocs and my running out of fire support to keep him from closing on me. And I had? Regular Brit line infantry vs. Regular FJ. He shot my guys to pieces with LMGs and HMGs, and mine were in command, in heavy cover.

Your idea to split the Tournament is interesting, but the historical side of it, IMO, won't work unless and until you impose rarity on the German troop types. The Germans have a well stocked toolbox, whereas the Allies, in an infantry fight, practically are doing plumbing with a hacksaw.

I don' know whether I'm coming or going anymore. I seem to be spending more time negotiating and discussing the games than I do playing them. I've had my head handed to me repeatedly, and in response I have tried to learn from my mistakes, consider new possibilities, change my force buy and the way I use it. This has only served to generate further upheaval.

I seem to be caught in a Catch-22 here. The Allies in CM seem to have serious limitations they didn't have IRL, said limitations magnified in the Tournament by the German ability to cheaply field lots of high FP units whose capabilities are well depicted.

Yet creative measures to counter a problem which was relatively rare IRL, but common in the Tournament, seem to generate calls of "Foul!" from one's foe. I live in a world where streamlined battalions, hordes of nasty MGs and pairs of Tigers are all acceptable, but it's uncool to burn a few buildings. Field artillery can be great, but it's prohibitively expensive to buy the needed capability in a city fight, yet the big guns are what it takes to suppress ubiquitous, unseen German infantry.

Personally, I've got an enormous amount of time, energy and effort invested in this, and

I've only played three games to the end so far. Fionn has seven or more, very nearly half the field. I think it would be unfair and arbitrary to zero out scores and restart the Tournament. We'd be almost sure to lose several current players, whose availability was contingent upon getting many games done before school started or other events occurred. I therefore vote"Nay!"

I hope that you and others involved in this and other tourneys will seriously consider the force modeling disparity issues I've been at pains to describe. They're biasing the game and causing you lots of work.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Berlichtingen]

I must admit that I came into this having only played people of a historical bent... and have had a few surprises so far. That being said, I vote... either way is fine by me

[John Kettler]

CapDog Wins!

As predicted, CapDog did move strongly on my right, having pretty much shot to pieces my in command, in heavy cover British infantry regulars with his regular FJs and HMGs. My guys were in the upper and lower levels of the right rear building.

When autosurrender came (77 CapDog to my 23, I believe), I was still offering resistance from the leftmost house, but I guess the occupants didn't care for a high lead diet with 75mm IG direct fire supplementation. I inflicted lots of casualties there as CapDog closed, but ran out of 25 pdr. support fire, thus making the outcome there inevitable. Maybe it's my imagination, but I'd swear my FO got worse as the game got late. He never did manage to drop a decent salvo on CapDog's men near my left house, and he had several turns to adjust his map coordinates.

Based on the rather poor performance of my men

in heavy buildings against Germans who were exposed quite a bit while advancing against me, I think that I need to completely rethink using British line infantry in towns. It's woefully weak vs FJ at 100m and worse at 40m, where the FP disparity becomes huge.

It was a mistake to buy two Crocs for a night battle. I did everything I could to protect them with lots of support fires and overwatching infantry. No joy. They died to the same 'schreck team without having burned a single German or a building. CS tanks would've been better at killing troops in buildings, denying open areas and more survivable through use of standoff tactics. A couple of Wasps carefully husbanded until late in the game, had I been able to protect them, might have ruined CapDog's day. OTOH, his two 75mm IGs would've blasted them to bits if he had LOS.

Though our casualties were close, he ended with lots of functioning squads and owned all the VLs, while my guys were shot to pieces and largely driven from the town.

I completely lost the game, but I'm getting marginally better in terms of reducing the extent of my loss.

I enjoyed my game with CapDog. The outcome could've been better, though.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Treeburst155]

Due to my immaturity and inability to cope with this same fault in others this tournament is hereby closed.

Treeburst155 outta here forever.

[John Kettler]

Treeburst155,

While I have absolutely zero insight into you or your life, other than what you've said in postings and by E-mail, you should know that I think, based on my experiences with you, that you, WineCape and the rest have done a fine job in putting together the Tournament and in judging it.

Clearly, things in the Tournament were much murkier and more tendentious than you ever expected, and you have every right to cancel the Tournament if such is your desire, regardless of how out of the blue and arbitrary said decision may appear to me and other participants, but your apparent concomitant withdrawal from the CM Forum altogether strikes me as an extreme overreaction.

Regardless of the Tournament, I fervently hope that you will reconsider your decision to leave the CM Forum. You and your contributions are appreciated and valued.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Due to my immaturity and inability to cope with this same fault in others this tournament is hereby closed.

Treeburst155 outta here forever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm... did I miss something?

[John Kettler]

I'm astonished there has been one reply other than my own to Treeburst155's bombshell announcement. I guess the participants are either busy gaming or are too shocked to post.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jarmo]

Yikes! I'm away for one day and the whole thing has collapsed!

I'm at loss of words.. voting to continue as is, is meaningless now but that's what I'd have voted.

But even if this tournament is now dead, as it seems, I'd still like to play everybody in the list. I've had fun! As always, I'll play whatever kind of setup my opponent likes.

BTW, I don't fit into either of the two player categories. I do this to have fun! Not only to win and not only as history book simulation.

I definitely try my best to win, but I don't pull (what I consider) gamey tricks to do it.

I can play "historically" is the other player wants. But not the way some people see the thing. Some yell "gamey" as soon as they see a King Tiger. Or anything else than the most common vehicle the side had. And although I know quite a bit about the matter, I don't know everything about how the tanks are supposed to be mixed. Historic scenarios are full of gamey mixes so they are no help.

BTW, I did a search with Treeburst's id, and there is no thread with any clue to this sudden developement. Probably an email exchange or something.

Anyway, please reconsider. If someone pissed you off, blast him outta the tournaments! You have the right to do it without explanations.

[TexasToast]

Wow, I guess there was more going on here than I thought.

If there are those who have found themselves incompatible with the competition and/or commitment of this tournament, perhaps they should gracefully bow out. Or, if somehow there are a few who are consistently making life difficult for Treeburst and the other participants, then maybe they should be removed from the tourney.

At any rate, I hope there is some way to keep it afloat. If not, thanks Mike for all the time you put in to get it started, and I'm sorry it didn't turn out like it should have.

[windstarz]

Just goes to show how hard it is to run anything online. I have been in football and baseball leagues where the immaturity level was high. Sometimes the guy trying to please everyone gets fed up. Probably had a few constant whiners and malcontents who were making his life miserable. I was enjoying following the action. maybe a compromise will be reached.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Oh boy. I suspect that there must be a lot of pressure on Treeburst via e-mail from some participants for reasons largely unknown to the rest of us (although it seems to be gripes from some players who like to cry foul or gamey, or that they claim the other guy tried too hard to win??) Whatever.

But whatever the content in those e-mails try to remember its only a game fellas, the tourney has been quite fun, win or lose and thats the way it should be.

Maybe Mike (Treeburst) needs a break, he has been running several tourneys and devoting a lot of time for the benefit of others - is it a case of "One tourney too far" ?

Take it easy Mike, you deserve a break, i appreciate what you have been doing and i think its unfair of others to put pressure on you, if they have a beef of some kind they should take it up with their opponent, not the organiser. The end result is that a lot of genuine players are gonna be unhappy that these tourneys are going to be scrapped because of a few individuals.

I am truly sorry to see all your efforts wasted and i wish i could say something to help or to make you change your mind.

But you know more than the rest of us, and if you decide you cannot go on then i respect that and wish you all the very best. But please don't leave the forum, quit the tourneys by all means but don't go permanently. That would be a tragedy.

Regards

Terry (CDIC)

[Wild Bill Wilder]

I want to stick my nose in here (and probably get it lopped off in the process).

Let's take a breath, take a moment and consider a few points.

1. Treeburst and Winecape are great gaming enthusiasts whose goal was to encourage gamers by offering some competitive FUN (I emphasize the word, "fun.").

The wargaming community, while relatively small in size is composed of every sort of personality imaginable. The majority is rather silent, looking for a hobby to entertain them. Then within the ranks there is also a minroity, which is rather vociferous in expression. They speak loudly, candidly and sometimes quite harshly.

2. For some of this minority in the gaming community, gaming is not just fun. It includes some unhappy people whose cup of coffee (stimulus) each day is finding fault with others and their efforts. Not that they could do it better; they just think they could.

There can be a number of reasons for this. I won't go into them.

3. Then there are those who have something to prove. To them winning is everything and losing is intolerable. For them "Second place is the first loser." These pedantics cannot bear the personal shame of losing. Gaming for them is a podium of pride, an opportunity to impress other gamers with their superiority in both skill and knowledge.

4. Sponsoring a tourney means that all of these are going to probably get involved. That seems to be the case here.

5. The first set of scenarios I designed for a tourney was some five years ago, for the old Wargamer site with Mario Kroll and Tim Maushardt.

6. Even though it went relatively well, I do think it produced some serious grays for the two of them. There was some nit-picking, bitching and moaning, and angry expressions of varying degrees, usually from those that lost.

Kinda like the program, "The Weakest Link," shown in the USA and perhaps overseas.

7. Undertaking the sponsoring and management of a tourney takes nerves of steel. One comes under the gun from many sources. This is inevitable. It will happen.

8. Knowing something of the paperwork, hassle and pain of such enterprises and knowing of the sincere good-hearted efforts of Mike and Winecap, I think a vote of confidence and appreciation would be in order here.

9. It is time for the silent majority to make some noise.

So here is my war cry. Treeburst and Winecape, I applaud your efforts. I think you are doing your best to making wargaming more fun for CM folks.

I'm sorry you've caught flak. Know that your efforts are worthy of praise. I personally thank you for what you have done and are doing, no matter what you decide for the future.

Wild Bill

[Claymore]

Ok Dammit! I guy tries to take a weekend off and spend it with the wife and kids only to find out the entire universe is threatening implosion!

Mike and Charl. You both have my thanks. Please ignore the whinning and continue the Tournament.

To those others...What an utter load of horsecrap. It's a game for christ's sake. If you feel that your personal electronic reputation is too precious to maintain following a loss or two of a GAME then GET THE HELL OUT.

1. Right up front the rules by which the tournament was to be run under were thrashed out. If you felt that those rules were unfair then there was ample time to drop out. In fact, nothing is keeping you chained to the event. Feel free to drop out now graciously.

2. What did any of the participants contribute to this? Mike and Charl have taken an not inconsiderable amount of time to organize and run this event. The ONE exception that I am aware of is that Charles (TT) helped out Mike with the scheduling. Maybe I'm missing some other help but dammit, for someone at the eleventh hour to cry foul is poor sportsmanship. Damn. Try this in any other arena except the electronic one and you'll be served a heaping dish of hurt.

3. As far as I am aware only Mike, his wife Charl, and I have contributed awards to this affair. What does any of the other participants have invested?

Everybody back up and take a deep breath. Me included.

Mike and Charl...my hat is off to you both. It takes an incredible amount of stamina to run a tournament on top of the real world events we all find ourselves in.

All you others...if you can't abide by the original charter of the Tournament then get the hell out.

[Buckeye]

Hear, hear! WB, I couldn't agree more. I think it'd be a crying shame to throw out all the hard work and good intentions that have gone into the tourneys that Mike and Winecape have assembled. But I also would understand if they found all the whining, carping, and complaining had worn them down beyond the breaking point. I hope that they will reconsider, at least about the Rumblings of War Tourney, if not this one.

[Fuerte]

I don't understand what happened, is this tournament really dead?? :confused:

Personally I don't care about pre-game negotiations, I find computer generated battles as pleasant to play as these human generated maps with human purchased units. I think that it would have been much simpler if every game would have been computer generated. And there could have been assault/defence battles as well... maybe we could have used the same system as in bridge tournaments, where the same hands are played by different players over and over again, and the results are compared in the end.

If my vote has any meaning anymore, I vote for #1 gamey tournament with computer generated battles, and all played games counting as well as those in progress. We could have less players, 20 is a bit too much, or the tournament should be allowed to last for 8 months as planned. Basically we don't need Treeburst if he does not want to continue. This does not mean that I don't appreciate what he has done so far, quite the contrary.

[MrSpkr]

Wow. I too hope this tournament isn't dead. I am likely to get my head handed to me in most of my matches (excepting Berli and maybe Galanti - I have a surprise for you Ben) - but I am having fun.

I did ask for permission to restart one of my battles due to confusion as to the number of points you could strip from purchases -- I hope this isn't the kind of behaviour Treeburst is talking about -- if so, I apologize for any inconvenience. I may be rather obnoxious on the forums, but I do appreciate the hard work that goes into this tournment and would never knowingly cause grief to the organizers.

Please reconsider your decision, Treeburst - I think this is a fine tournament you have given us and am, for one, anxious to continue the fighting.

I was going to ask if a couple of more people want to start fighting, but will wait until a decision as to the tournament's ultimate fate is reached.

MrSpkr