A New Beginning-Invitational Tourney

[Treeburst155]

Welcome. You've found the new thread. Be sure you read the last page of the previous thread so you know what's going on with the rules. Some important stuff is in there if you want to do well in this tournament. BTW, the thread was locked because of technical problems along with some others.

[rvalle]

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

Welcome. You've found the new thread. Be sure you read the last page of the previous thread so you know what's going on with the rules. Some important stuff is in there if you want to do well in this tournament. BTW, the thread was locked because of technical problems along with some others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome back Treeburst. While I was not playing the tourney I was following it with great interest (I don't get to play much so I have to live my battles vicariously!)

rvalle

[Treeburst155]

Here's a list of tactics that might just cost you a major defeat if your opponent gripes about you using them and I agree with him after studying the relevant movies.

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 that you know you can't hold for another minute if the game were to continue.

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".

GOLDEN RULES:

Protect 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 hard to play the game as BTS intended once you have a little experience with the game. Use common sense. Role play as the commander. Question your motives when you give orders. Take care of your troops and equipment as best you can.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Jarmo]

Rule 7 is a surprise to me, but no matter.

I can play accordingly.

[von Lucke]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yah, I'm kinda wondering about this too. I can think of a couple of instances were this sort of thing happened in Real Life --- usually with disasterous results for the attacker.

Sometimes desperate situations call for desperate actions --- just look at the 20th Maine's countercharge at the Little Round Top...

Otherwise I agree with everything else...

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Treeburst155]

Some consider #7 gamey because it is so effective. The attacker doesn't suffer nearly the heavy casualties you mention above when he charges unsuppressed enemy positions. This is because the attacker charging through cover receives more cover bonus than he should and also, IIRC, puts out more fire than he should while running. This issue is being addressed in CMBB. There is at least one other game limitation involved in the "mass infantry rush". That is the fact that a unit can only fire on one unit at a time. Five squads attacking three will allow two to advance completely unmolested. This whole issue has been discussed at length, but I don't even bother with the search function anymore. Suffice it to say that some feel "the mass infantry rush" is far too effective. I tend to agree. All that is necessary IMO is that a good attempt be made to put covering/suppressive fire on the enemy position while the mad rush takes place. This is more realistic.

[Fuerte]

I still think that all those rules are completely unnecessary. If something is possible in the game, then it should be allowed. Blame the game, not the players...

I have been quilty to 1) 2) 3) 4) in some extent in some of the games that I have played, not in this tournament, though.

So it is better for me to withdraw from this tournament. I will play the two games to the end, if my opponents want to continue (Berlichtingen, Shandorf). There is no reason to start the game with Jarmo or Fionn, because no moves have been made (I could still play with Jarmo a ready made scenario or computer generated leisure game if you want, I think that these maps are a bit too much balanced and artificial, and not so interesting).

[Bil Hardenberger]

Although I like to think I play historically as much as possible, my concern is with what this tournament is turning into, it has lost something. I will be damned if I would report somebody for using the above listed tactics, that sounds a bit whiney to me. Not the way I would want to win, or lose

So I too must withdraw.

Thanks for the invite, and good luck to those that stick it out.

Bil

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Fellow participants,

I have no wish to upset anyones feelings, so i must respectfully withdraw at this stage. My head tells me to continue but my heart says withdraw. It looks like one of my 3 wins has been nullified due to SuperTeds withdrawal anyway. If anyone wishes to play a PBEM for fun drop me a line.

Bill is right - something is missing from the initial excitement and anticipation of this tourney.

No hard feelings guys - i shall be visiting this thread to see how it all pans out and i shall be rooting for you all amd looking out for the results.

Good luck Guys,

CDIC

[xerxes]

Wow,

I never even considered using a HQ for "scouting". I don't think I could bring myself to do that.

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

I was planning on trying this to deny buildings in a city fight. I guess if you lit up everything around a VL that would be cheap.

2) Advancing large formations along the map edge.

*Seems risky since if they break they're gone. I like it when my opponent tries this.

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

*Uh-oh, guilty.

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

Seems risky.

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

*Hope targeting will be fixed in CM2, I've used an empty zook to try and distract while my other zook tries for position. Gamey?

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

*Uh-oh. Dead crews should be worth more VPs to fix this. Heck, tanks were worth less than the crews.

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

*I like to suppress but I've done this.

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.

*Personally, if a player can pull this off my feeling is it wasn't really "controlled" but it was in a contested position.

I'm gameyer than I thought. I hope that Battlefront will address the abuses in CM2. Heck, they've got the perfect beta test.

- xerxes

[MrSpkr]

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

Here's a list of tactics that might just cost you a major defeat if your opponent gripes about you using them and I agree with him after studying the relevant movies.

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I can see this one in terms of the VL - that is NOT okay. I can even see it in regards to squares if you are trying to make a 'wall o' flames to deny access. However, I strongly disagree with it being gamey to torch a building, empty or no. It is and was a legitimate tactic ("I think the Jerries might be in that building -- should we rush it?" "No, torch it, son, let him do the rushing.")

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) Advancing large formations along the map edge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe. If everyone is in a single file along the map edge, this might be legitmate; however, with such small maps, some map edge movement is inevitable if you want to even attempt to flank your enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3) Scouting with AT teams, crews of knocked out vehicles or guns, MG teams, and anybody who is "low" on ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree with all but the last point. Sometimes, your lead troops run out of ammo, but are still in the best position to scout for you; additionally, they are much more vulnerable as scouts for that very reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4) Recon with light (cheap) vehicles well into enemy territory.

5) Exposing AT teams SOLEY for the purpose of drawing enemy fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problems here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6) Ordering vehicle and gun crews to participate in an attack or hunt down enemy teams or spotters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally not a problem; however, I have used my crews to zap an enemy AT team ('zook) before. The zook cooked up their armored car, the crew bailed out in good condition (in the open) and then headed to the 'zook position 40m away and killed the 'zook team (and took cover at the same time). I don't believe that was gamey. However, had I moved them halfway across the board to do that, I could see the argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7) Rushing infantry straight at a known enemy position (especially through cover) with no supporting/suppressive fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strong problems here - there are often situations where you need to say the heck with the casualties, advance and hold. Covering fire in some situations may not be an option (particularly where the enemy is under cover).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed - I would have had a Major victory against Kaisers (I think) in the other tournament had this not occurred. I am glad BTS is rewriting the CMBB game engine to extend the game time if a VL swqitches hands at the last second.

Personally, I can live with these rules. I did not enter this tournament expecting to win, but to do respectably and learn a few things. I certainly don't plan on reporting an opponent for 'gamey behavior' -- I have long been an advocate of 'anything reasonable goes', and I should have made arrangements accordingly to compensate for your action.

Personally, I think it would be amusing to be attacked by 10 flak trusk, but hey, that's just me.

[WineCape]

Gentleman,

To top this "interesting week", my wife was involved in a car accident (luckily nothing serious, but our Volvo is no more!) so will get back to you all later...

Regards,

Charl Theron (WineCape)

[Berlichtingen]

First off, welcome back Treeburst, glad you changed your mind!

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

Here's a list of tactics that might just cost you a major defeat if your opponent gripes about you using them and I agree with him after studying the relevant movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, being a confirmed rules hater, I can live with these.

[L.Tankersley]

I'm not in the tournament, but I will take this opportunity to chime in with my thoughts on these examples of "gamey tactics."

[b1) Setting fire to "squares" or buildings unoccupied by enemy troops, ESPECIALLY to deny a VL or covered access to one.

I can see this. First, I think in general it's rather too easy to light large areas on fire in CM. I wouldn't mind so much if someone wanted to use an infantry flamethrower team to do this because of their limited ammo and vulnerability, but I have visions of a couple Crocodiles lighting up the entire map.

2) Advancing large formations along the map edge.

Frankly I don't see anything (much) wrong with this. If the scenario is of the attack/defend variety, presumably the defender's mandate is to defend the _entire_ width of the map. Yes, it does give the attacker a covered flank, but it also concentrates the attacker in a small area. I think problems with this tactic are due more to the balance and scoring issues inherent in CM quick battles than anything else.

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

I'd agree that this sort of thing should be a no-no. I wouldn't restrict use of line squads that happen to have LOW ammo, though. They're still regular infantry. And once you are low on ammo, there's a decent chance that your opponent is, too.

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

I sort of disagree with this. The express purpose of many light vehicles was recon. Surely if you're fighting a battle with "armored" force type you wouldn't have this restriction? Or would you expect a player to scout with main battle tanks instead?

On the other hand, I don't think buying a whole bunch of Kubelwagens (or whatever) and sending them hither and yon through the enemy setup area should be allowed. I think this is more of a force purchase issue than a tactics issue, though.

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

Ehhhh. This is a push, mostly because judging someone's intentions after the fact is so fraught with peril.

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

I'd agree that this should be a no-no. On the other hand, I think you should be able to use them to guard victory flags and guard/escort prisoners. Given the mentality of most CM games, particularly in a tournament, every battle is a "must-win, last ditch" attack or defense. In those circumstances I don't have a big problem with using leftover crews and whatnot as last-line-of-defense troops in an Alamo-like situation.

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

While I understand the game engine limitation you're trying to keep from being exploited here, I can't get behind this restriction. There are too many circumstances where you might be compelled to do something like this. And again this kind of judgement call makes me very nervous.

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.

While I agree this tactic is artificial, so is the presence of victory flags in the first place. I don't have a problem with people doing this - if someone wants to be sure they will hold a flag at the end of the game, then by god they need to secure the area around it with enough men to prevent a last-minute rush from contesting it.

[Treeburst155]

WineCape,

I'm very sorry to hear about your wife's auto accident. It's good to know she wasn't seriously injured. We'll be here hashing out my unpopular rules while you take care of real life.

To All,

LOL!! I'm getting both historical and competition players dropping out over these rules. I never would have guessed that. I personally would love to play a tourney under these "rules".

I think many of you misunderstand the new "rules". These are merely guidelines to avoid charges of gamey play by your opponent. They are an attempt to spell out what your opponents MAY be very unhappy with.

Personally, I would probably break a few of these rules from time to time if I thought my use of the tactics IN A GIVEN SITUATION was not gamey. I would have no problem playing under these rules. Perhaps that is because I know how the judge thinks.

There are three tournaments running on this forum that have been successful. The first one is Iron Duke's Ass Kicker Tournament. Those guys have a good time together. I played in the second one and enjoyed it thoroughly. There is no restriction on tactics in that tournament. Anything goes. It is a gamey tournament, but it is fun.

The other two successful tournaments are WineCape I and II. These guys are playing QBs and basically negotiating their games amongst themselves with purchase restrictions in place (CAL Tournament House).

Something went wrong with this tournament, and I'm convinced it concerns gamey play, yet people don't want to restrict its use. I'm really at a loss with this group. I'm totally puzzled. In any case, with so much un-fun negativity surrounding this tournament it really isn't any fun anymore is it?

I'm willing to call this tournament a failure based largely on my management decisions from day one. I've learned from it and the experience will help me to run better tournaments in the future. I thank you all for participating in my BETA test. LOL!!

And now it's time to bury this corpse of a tournament. If you are truly mourning its passing then email me. If there are enough of you interested we can work out the details for a smaller tournament. I still have lots of maps that most of you haven't seen. Some are quite good IMO. I think the sheer size of this one has contributed to its demise.

The Invitational Tourney of "Stars"-may she rest in peace.

[Ben Galanti]

I'm fine with these.

One thing to poitn out is, that before hand, folks can still agree to play an 'anything goes' type game, since none of these rules mean anything if nothing is reported to Treeburst.

I don't mind these kind of things though, because, to me, doing anything to win, just because the game allows it, kinda ruins the fun for me. Obviously, this is a case of different strokes for different folks, and thats the great thing about CM, you can play it however you like. It's just inherintly difficult to set up a tourney like this with people coming from very different perspectives on these things.

That being said, I agree that that the rule 7 is a little tough, but, again, I'd have a _real_ hard time 'reporting' someone, just because that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the contest. I'd hope that people wouldn't take this so seriously that whether they won or not would matter that much, but apparently some folks were, which caused all of this ruckus in the first place...

Ah well, I'm just happy that it's back on!

Ben

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And now it's time to bury this corpse of a tournament. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No! No no no no..

This is just a bad dream, just a dream.

Tomorrow when I wake up the tournament is still here...

[Treeburst155]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

I'm fine with these.

One thing to point out is, that before hand, folks can still agree to play an 'anything goes' type game, since none of these rules mean anything if nothing is reported to Treeburst.

I don't mind these kind of things though, because, to me, doing anything to win, just because the game allows it, kinda ruins the fun for me. Obviously, this is a case of different strokes for different folks, and thats the great thing about CM, you can play it however you like. It's just inherintly difficult to set up a tourney like this with people coming from very different perspectives on these things.

That being said, I agree that that the rule 7 is a little tough, but, again, I'd have a _real_ hard time 'reporting' someone, just because that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the contest. I'd hope that people wouldn't take this so seriously that whether they won or not would matter that much, but apparently some folks were, which caused all of this ruckus in the first place...

Ah well, I'm just happy that it's back on!

Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read Ben's first paragraph!! This is the key. Communicate with your opponent BEFORE the game begins regarding ALL the POTENTIALLY gamey tactics I've listed. You could agree to throw them all out!! I don't care as long as I don't get complaints from your opponent. It's that simple. COMMUNICATION !!!

Jarmo,

Don't mourn the loss of this tourney. A new one will be started with those, like you, who wish it. I'm getting enough withdrawals on this one that many of the games would have to be thrown out anyway. It's best just to start clean with a smaller group. You should email me so I have you on record as wanting to take part in a tourney. As soon as things shake out we'll start a new one.

[Berlichtingen]

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

Something went wrong with this tournament, and I'm convinced it concerns gamey play, yet people don't want to restrict its use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree (since no two people can agree on what is gamey). I think you hit on the problem earlier... player style. All the other tourneys appealed to specific kinds of players, and they requested to play. In this case, the players were invited to play rather than actively seeking to play in it (I would say that the number one reason for accepting the invitation was the opportunity to play the other people on the list more than the tourney itself). Because they tourney didn't draw the players (the invites did), you got a wide assortment of play styles that would not have happened otherwise.

[Treeburst155]

Berli,

Good point! I agree. The gamey issue is not the root cause of the problem. It was the mixing of playing styles.

BTW, your bonus game with MickOZ still stands. The offer of the prize was made to you two and I'll not go back on that. Neither one of you is to blame for any of these tourney problems. Have a glorious fight!

Treeburst155 out.

[L.Tankersley]

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

Read Ben's first paragraph!! This is the key. Communicate with your opponent BEFORE the game begins regarding ALL the POTENTIALLY gamey tactics I've listed. You could agree to throw them all out!! I don't care as long as I don't get complaints from your opponent. It's that simple. COMMUNICATION !!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking as someone that has assisted in the design and operation of a large internet tournament in the past, I'd like to point out that you should really make explicit in the tournament proceedures whether such an advance agreement is binding. Otherwise, two players could agree beforehand that "anything goes" but then one player pulls something the other thinks is completely beyond the pale and not covered by the agreement, and complains anyway. Or alternatively despite the agreement a player on the losing end could still complain in an attempt to salvage a victory.

I know people like to think that you're just playing a friendly game and no one would "stoop so low," but the very fact that this debate is going on so forcefully is evidence that this sort of thing WILL happen. "Sure, we said anything goes, but I didn't mean you could buy 35 Wasp flamethrowers and nothing else! That's clearly ridiculous!"

And Treeburst, one other recommendation I would make is to stay away from judgement calls as much as possible. You open yourself up to charges of inconsistency and favoritism, and put yourself in a no-win situation. I've been there and done that, and it's no fun. Just a bit of advice for the future.

[Treeburst155]

Thanks Leland for the tips. My trying to pass judgement on gamey tactics would really be asking for trouble, wouldn't it?! Yeah, it's best not to go that route. That's why this tournament has to be scrapped and begun again IMO. There are many participants who probably are unaware of all that has transpired too. The whole tournament will have changed completely when they get back from their 2 week business trips.

It's almost like any tournament would have to be "No Holds Barred" as far as tactics are concerned, like Iron Duke's tournament. In chess this gamey problem doesn't come up because there is no such concept in that game. I'm beginning to think that CM tournaments must necessarily be played in the same manner, as Fuerte suggested above. If the game allows it, it can be done, just like in chess. It's a competition so it's unnatural for people to avoid certain "moves" they KNOW would aid their cause just because SOME might think it gamey and complain.

It's a tough situation. This tourney needs to be scrapped because of it IMO.

To Jarmo, Mr Spkr, Ben Galanti, Claymore and any others who wish to keep playing;

How about I continue purchasing forces and issuing maps to you guys until you've played all your games with those on your list who are still willing. The difference would be that I'm not going to keep score. You get to play on maps that are somewhat nicer that QB maps IMO, and you have a third party (me) to promptly transfer forces for you. You can play each other to your hearts content with any understandings and agreements you want. I would just be a PBEM service of sorts to help players get around the limitations of QBs by placing forces on custom made maps. There are quite a few nice custom maps out there I believe. Der Kessel has some, Rune has made some, David Aitken has a couple beautiful city maps. I would even be willing to put together some special order maps on occasion.

I would enjoy providing this service to the community. Naturally, there is a limit to how much of this I can do, but I can certainly do it for the invitees to the "Stars" tournament at least. It doesn't take that long to transfer forces when you've done it 40 times.

If it's the score keeping and the competition that makes the tourney interesting to you then we need to reorganize. If it's just the custom maps, and force choosing in the editor we can just keep going without all the hassles of keeping score and problems relating to the competitive nature of the tourney. Just a thought.

[Ben Galanti]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

Ah well, I'm just happy that it's back on!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ack, talk about a case of poor timing. I write this just as Treeburst decides to end it (which probably is for the best, as it seemed to be in a definite downward spiral).

Thanks again for all of your work on this Mike. I hope a Gold Master version of the tourney is in the works

(added after seeing Treebursts latest reply)

Dang it, will you stop posting at the same time I am, all my responses seem to be out of phase now

Anyway, for those on the list who are interested, I'm more then willing to take up Treebursts offer. So, if you're looking for a pushover PBEM (one turn a day) opponent on some fine hand crafted maps, I'm your man

Ben

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Ben Galanti ]

[John Kettler]

Okay, Treeburst155 returns, the ToS is reinstated under new rules, we have a few dropouts, I'm thinking about improved force structure and... The Tournament vanishes for a second time.

I'm starting to feel like the guy who fell for the girl in Brigadoon or the ignorant participant in one of those Situation X stress tests like the OSS used to give.

No doubt WineCape will have something to say about this latest stunner, but having had his wife in a wreck (thank goodness she's okay!) upon his return, he's rather distracted.

I'm going to purge all my old game files and sit tight.

Sign me

Thoroughly Confused

(John Kettler)

[Treeburst155]

Ben,

I will definitely be offering something to you guys orphaned by the demise of the Invitational. Right now it's unclear what you guys want. We have to let the dust settle and find out what is on everybody's mind. Rest assured, there will be something available to you guys very soon. We can use this thread to discuss where we go from here.