Tournament Interest? (long)

[medlinke]

Hi everyone,

I suppose this is mildly official at this point. I am looking into the general interest of a CM tournament. I have laid out the format below:

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

* Open Enrollment up to 40 participants. (This number may rise, but initially 40 is all I can handle)

* Participants can play PBEM, TCP/IP or a combo of the two, and each must submit a screenshot of the AAR screen at the end of each of their games. Failure to do so, even if I see you win on the AAR screen results in a Forfeiture.

* Up to 2 weeks to finish each game. No games in the initial 2 round over 25-30 turns.

* Rounds 3-5 will be 25-40 turns in length (still 2 weeks though)

* The finals are 60 turn games (time considerations of each player are taken into account for the finals)

ROUND 1

* participants are divided into groups of 4 players with each player playing each other player 1 time. At the end of this time, the players with the best record (highest victory point totals in case of ties) advance to the next round.

ROUND 2

* groups are paired with another group to once again create groups of 4. Again, each participants plays the others 1 time and the best records (again highest points determine ties) advance.

ROUND 3

* The two participants with the highest advancing point totals from round 2 get a by in this round.

* The remaining 8 participants are paired up into 2 groups of 4 and follow the same procedure as Rounds 1 & 2. With only 4 participants total advancing to Round 4

ROUND 4

* The two participants with the highest advancing point total get a by, excluding those team which didn't play in round 3.

* The same procedures as the previous round are in play in round 4.

ROUND 5

* The final four participants play each other in the same manner as the previous rounds and with the same advancement rules.

ROUND 6

* This is the finals. The participants play the same scenario two times, once as each side, and the winner is determined by the participant with the highest total point total at the end of those games.

I think that this might be an interesting tournament to run, and I'd be willing to do it if 40 people were interested and commited to finishing the tournament. I might even be willing to pay for a small plaque or T-Shirt for the winner commemorating the win.

I realize that this tournament would be quite long running in at around 44 weeks if it goes the full amount of time for each round, but I think if you want to be in a PBEM tournament it's only fair to let each game be 2 weeks long.

Tell me your thoughts!

Keith

[Cubes]

Put me on the list justdoit44@bigpond.com.au

Geoff / Cubes

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The idea of a tourney strikes me as a great idea, but the mechanics seem a bit daunting. 2-4 turns of CM PBEM per day for nearly a year? It seems to me this length arises from the finalists playing 22 seperate games. There does not seem to me to be a need to play 22 games to determine winners out of a field of 40 entrants.

I recommend instead, for your consideration obviously, using the so called Swiss tourney system, often used in chess matches. The idea is that in each round there is a top half and a bottom half (in the first round it can be random and does not matter). In the first round, 1 plays 21, 2 plays 22, etc. Afterward you have winners and losers. The winners are now the top half, the losers are the bottom half. The winners play each other, with the same top to bottom split - new 1 plays new 11, new 2 plays new 12, etc. Meanwhile, the first round losers continue playing, against each other this time.

At each round of the match, the players are ranked by their total win-loss record to date, simple sum of won games. Ties are decided by VPs for each rounds rankings. The ranking determines who plays who.

A Swiss with 32 players can usually be decided in 5 rounds, meaning 5 games, but some overkill is better. 6 or 8 would probably serve. The more overkill, the easier it is to climb back from the bottom after a loss or two.

You could have the finalists play the round, each against the others, in the "final four", and the last two play the same scenario twice as you planned. But getting to the final four could be the top records in a 6 or 8 round Swiss. That would cut the number of games the finalists would play in half, and allow the whole to be completed in 5-6 months. And 5 of those games would be finalists only, so people in the first part of the match would have a 3-4 month time commitment.

To clarify, the "candidates" match would wind up being a series of 6-8 games, with the players with the best records facing players with progressively more stand-out records as the match proceeds. Those who lose a game in that "heat" fall back away from the top "seed" position, where the "heat" is presumably somewhat less, among players with less standout records to date.

Compared to your proposal, the big time saver is just that each player only has to play one game in one of your rounds, instead of playing one each against all the players he is "foured" off with.

The final four would be players with 8-0, 7-1, 7-1, and the best 6-2 record or whatever (best on VPs). Only those would round-robin as you have it now for each round.

It is just a suggestion, but I think it might be more manageable to expect 3-4 months of play out of the "field". Coordinations of 40 people for 10 months do not work terribly well in my experience.

I've had extensive experience in long-running PBEMs with up to 16 players lasting up to a year and change, and one generally finds that real life impacts some of them over that kind of time scale, and makes holes. Others are willing to continue but face temporary delays. Etc. It is just much more practical for a large number of people to keep the decks basically clear for 3 months, when things are mostly foreseeable, rather than 10 months where they are not.

Use or discard as you see fit...

[stevetherat]

Chalk me in (e-mail link above)

Steve

[medlinke]

After sleeping on the current system overnight, I think that indeed it's just too much to ask of the participants. The idea behind it was to let everyone (included people bumped in the 1st round)to get at least 4 games of tourney experience under their belt.

Obviously 22 games for the finalists is a lot to ask. It would definately prove 2 things...dedication and of course skill. But I think that a tourney that long would lead to a lot of dropout.

So...Instead of this idea, what does everyone think of another CM ladder? Then I could use ladder rankings to determine tournament setups etc. However, I think theblitz.org and others do a real bang-up[ ladder job.

I guess if there is interest in a ladder I could start another one up. I'll submit a ladder idea to the forum within a week to judge interest.

Till then

Keith

[Check6]

The Swiss tournament sounds like a great idea to me. I would be most happy to see that, but count me in for a new ladder as well.

checksix224@aol.com

[Dr. Brian]

You didn't post what type of scnearios.

I've asked this before an a somewhat related, yet unrelated topic.

In any tournament, the scenarios MUST be balanced. Has there been any reporting for scenario balance in CM at all?

In ASL, we have what is called R.O.A.R. Players report their scenarios, what side won, side played, etc.

Some scenarios have over 1000 reported playings, and the Axis/Allied win/loss ratio is 50-50.

This is a great scenario for a tournament.

What does the CM crowd offer?

Thanks in advance!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Johan Brittz]

Medlink - you can count me in. The Swiss system sounds a better bet. Also keep in mind that due to time differences (I'm in Africa) it's not always possible to send even 2 mails per day and with the PBEM setup as it is you have to send quite a bit more mails than the actual number of rounds (1 and a half times more? - not sure) So to finnish 25 rounds in 2 weeks will be nearly impossible.

Don't get disheartened though - the answer is out there and I'm in whatever it is

[Jarmo]

The tournament idea sounds good.

Another ladder doesn't, it's really much better the fewer ladders there are.

But I very much doubt it'd be possible for most to finish a game in 2 weeks.

There's an ongoing tournament in Rugged Defense. http://www.Rugged-Defense.nl/cm/cm.htm

We had 6 weeks for the first 2 games and 8 weeks for the ongoing 3rd round.

I believe 4 weeks would work with committed players.

Or it could be an all TCP/IP style thing.

[medlinke]

I agree completely about scenario balance. However, I think that getting a R.O.A.R system up would be nice. The only problem would be incorporating user created scenarios all the time. It would have to be a project in conjunction with the guy doing the work on the CM Scenario DB. Or there would have to be an added routine in the ASP script that would convert all the scenarios in lower case or something... I don't know, but you're right that is a nice thing in ASL.

Also, I think I'm going to go with the ladder before I delve into the workings of a tournament. Things like, average playing time on scenarios, rankings, PBEM vs. TCP/IP stats, and user reliability are real concerns that need to be explored before an effective tournament gets underway.

Like I said, please keep the suggestions coming in, and look for my ladder system outline sometime in the near future.

Thanks

Keith

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

OK, I've got an idea. Some are saying that 2 weeks per game is itself too fast, PBEM turn around times being what they are. So I suggest the following tourament lay out.

A 6-round Swiss match to determine the final four. A 3-round round robin among the final four to determine the championship match. And a 1-round shoot out for the CM heavyweight championship of the world!

The games to be timed to a re-creation scheme. The first 3 rounds of the Swiss recreate the late war fighting in small actions, meeting engagements or hasty defenses. Allied artillery, German mines and panzerfausts, small unit actions, limited vehicles in most, but one of the three more armor-oriented by still small. These rounds are played in February, March, and April, and the scenarios are set in those months of 1945. One game per month.

May is a "bye" month, to rest and recooperate and determine if you are still married and employed. This celebrates the war's end.

Then the second half of the Swiss starts. The first half should have sorted the player list and "seed" positions reasonably well, so in the upper half of the tourament the competition should be more fierce in the second 3 rounds of the Swiss. The settings are Normandy and the breakout battles, and somewhat larger, more involved scenarios. In June, an airborne scenario. In July, the British on the attack with armor at Caen. In August, the Germans on the counterattack with armor at Mortain (trying to cut off the breakout), against dug in U.S. troops with strong fire support.

The highest 4 players by win-loss record from those 6 rounds, with cumulative VPs deciding draws by record, advance to the semi-finals. They then play each other in a round robin in three scenarios. The first in September is taken from Operation Market-Garden - Red Devils (Brit 1st Airborne) at Arnhem, attacked by German armor. The second pits U.S. vets of the 3rd army with armor, attacking fortified in Germans in the mud of Lorraine. And the third sees the rival infantries clashing in the midst of the Hurtgen forest. These scenarios will try the players abilities to defend against armor without armor of their own, and to fight where armor can't go.

The best two records out of the semi-finals meet for their rematch to determine the CM world champion, in a combined arms meeting engagement in the snow of the Ardennes, German Panzer spearheads against U.S. armored division counterattackers.

Such players as are eliminated by their record in the Swiss 6-round preliminaries, can of course play the later scenarios if they like. If there is enough interest, they will be organized into a seperate, four-round Swiss for the "field", playing the same scenarios as the leaders, just not against leading commanders. Naturally, they are still out of the running for the championship, but you might get an honorable mention for the best W-L outside the final four or whatever.

And if players are willing, I propose the champion gets the rest of us to spring for his copy of CM2 when it comes out. Strictly on a voluntary basis, of course. It is a tiny thing, but will be meaningful to the winner because of how he worked for it.

The scenarios should be short and small, especially the first 3 rounds. The remaining ones can be a bit more involved, and the last can be longer in turns. But they should all be small enough that getting through them in a month will not be a problem.

Some balance will be provided by the variety of forces commanded and roles involved. The Germans will be on the defense more often, but they will get to attack in the Mortain and Arnhem scenarios. The Brits are represented by Caen and Arnhem - perhaps one of the late-war meeting engagements should be Brits vs. Germans too, so they get one scenario in each round and one of each type.

Does this sound feasible? Interesting?