Scenarios in RD tournament

[Jager]

Hi,

**** SPOILER WARNING *****

Thread contains some information

on round one scenario.

**************************

First let's get it in the open: I lost both games in RD tournament round one and got the boot . My opponents played better than me.

But in future it would be nice if the kind of unbalance that affected this tournament (at least round one) would not exist.

But, I feel that when using premade scenarios in a tournament, so that one get's to play both sides, gives one or the other side unfair advantage. Also this advantage can be acquired by playing the scenario by oneself. For the record: I do not think my opponents did that. I lost on my own

But it would be naive to think that in a premade scenario, like the one used in round one of RD tournament, knowledge of enemy reinforcements would not effect ones tactics. A quite large part of troops on both sides arrived as reinforcement. So the player(s) that plays his/her game(s) faster than his/her other opponent gets to anticipate the changes to the balance of power.

Extreme cases would be ambush on the turn reinfocements arrive or even artillery bombardment the moment the troops appear.

So what should be done? Any ideas?

[ December 11, 2002, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Jager ]

[jKMkIII]

Blah. Post deleted.. no interesting details or anything here.

[ December 11, 2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: jKMkIII ]

[Overkill]

I emailed cyberfox about this. It does give the player a heads up of what forces your up against and to adjust your plan of attack. He said he would talk to the Boots and Tracks guys to avoid this in the future. Otherwise both my games appear to be OK... So I think...

[Nidan1]

Here we go again with the "fair and balanced" vs. "Historical unbalance" argument. While I agree that playing a scenario from both sides simultaneously in tournament play does give one hint of what could be coming, and could encourage "gaminess", I don't understand what the big deal is, make it fun and consider it some form of "intelligence" that you as the commander received during the battle. Everyone in the tournament is geting the same "information" based on the timing of the turns in each game. Its only a game, nothing really is at stake here, have fun with it.

[Cpt Kernow]

Well Im involved in this tournament.

My games hadnt advanced to the point of recieving reinforcements.

Thanks for hte heads up.

Kernow.

[Jager]

Its only a game, nothing really is at stake here, have fun with it.

Yep, thats what I did. So big thanks to Cyberfox and Boots & Tracks. Reason for my "whining" is that the experience had some minor issues that can be corrected in the future if they are brought in the open.

Sorry about posting about this before the official end of the round one.

[ December 11, 2002, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Jager ]

[WWB]

Gee, guys, really makes someone want to do scenarios for your tourney.

Not to mention ruining what little FOW does exist. I would hope the above authors will delete their above posts or at least post a big spoiler alert.

For the record, in our initial communications, we were told, since both players were going to be playing both sides, to make the battles heavily reinforcement based. So we were following Cyberfox's request as I understand thing, not trying to ruin the tournament for you.

WWB

[Jager]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Gee, guys, really makes someone want to do scenarios for your tourney.

Not to mention ruining what little FOW does exist. I would hope the above authors will delete their above posts or at least post a big spoiler alert.

For the record, in our initial communications, we were told, since both players were going to be playing both sides, to make the battles heavily reinforcement based. So we were following Cyberfox's request as I understand thing, not trying to ruin the tournament for you.

WWB

First, the tournament definately was not spoiled in any way and I enjoyd the scenario, so thanks.

Second, spoiled warning added after reading reply from Cpt Kernow. Sorry about that one again. My bad.

Third, The reinforcement idea was not a bad one. But at least in some cases it seems to backfire. Now, if it had not been tried we would not have learned about it. So we are now a bit wiser

[Scott B]

Going to try to reply point by point, excluding FOW related issues where necessary.

Originally posted by Jager:

First let's get it in the open: I lost both games in RD tournament round one and got the boot . My opponents played better than me.

Sorry to hear that - thanks for playing our stuff, though, and also thanks for the feedback.

But in future it would be nice if the kind of unbalance that affected this tournament (at least round one) would not exist.

To a significant extent the guidelines for this tournament were set on the RD side - B&T is providing the scenarios. Are you simply talking about the effect of playing mirrored games? Since the scenario treats each side the same way, I am puzzled as to what it is we can do on our side with regard to balance.

We already have a few things that are put into tourney scenarios, mind you. We try to make scenarios with a lot of tactical options and minimal randomness so as to maximize the degree that player skill can play a role in determining the winner of a battle. Chance will always have a part in it, but by doing things like always having reinforcements arrive in the same place at the same time, having a fixed number of turns, etc., we can at the very least treat each player fairly as best we can on our side.

But, I feel that when using premade scenarios in a tournament, so that one get's to play both sides, gives one or the other side unfair advantage. Also this advantage can be acquired by playing the scenario by oneself. For the record: I do not think my opponents did that. I lost on my own.

That would be feedback that would be best directed at the RD tournament leadership - and at a more basic level it's a question that's always going to be present in tournaments that employ scenarios. The best solution (in my opinion) is a weighting system like Treeburst uses in the RoW tournaments, but I am biased here because that also frees us designers to give them deliberately unbalanced scenarios to play as well - which is fun for us to do as a change of pace.

But it would be naive to think that in a premade scenario ... knowledge of enemy reinforcements would not effect ones tactics... Extreme cases would be ambush on the turn reinfocements arrive or even artillery bombardment the moment the troops appear.

I think that we can minimize the chances of this happening in scenarios, but again a lot of this is more or less imposed by the system itself. I do not know to what extent we can eliminate so-called "gamey" abuses in the editor when the tournament format may encourage them; is there some form of code of conduct for the tourney?

I'm not trying to pass this off as 'not my problem,' as if there are specific issues that can be addressed I encourage you to e-mail them to me if they create FOW issues here. However, timed reinforcements are one of the things that make scenarios unique and so they ought to be expected in further tournament battles. What we can, do, however, is minimize the chances that abuses can occur.

Anyway, we've already been made aware of the issue and I think that future scenarios should be less likely to see this sort of thing happening.

I really appreciate the feedback and we can use it to make our scenarios better. I would still encourage you to keep all FOW related issues - and the existance of reinforcements is one - off of the message boards until the first round is entirely completed. I am not involved in the actual running of the tournament - we're more like 'contractors' who furnish a scenario for each round - but I do want people to enjoy our material. Also, thanks for keeping it civil - some of the e-mail I've seen was rather less civil than the above discussion.

Scott

[Kingfish]

Guys,

I'll start a RD tourney thread in the scenario section once everyone has finished their first game. At that point FOW will no longer an issue and you can then discuss the scenario in detail, as well as offer feedback, AARs or suggestions on the other scenarios we are working on.

If you have any specific questions you can contact me at Boots and Tracks.

[Jager]

Originally posted by Scott B:

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

But in future it would be nice if the kind of unbalance that affected this tournament (at least round one) would not exist.

To a significant extent the guidelines for this tournament were set on the RD side - B&T is providing the scenarios. Are you simply talking about the effect of playing mirrored games? Since the scenario treats each side the same way, I am puzzled as to what it is we can do on our side with regard to balance.

</font>

[Tanaka]

Interesting, I also e-mailed Cyberfox “whining" about the “problems” in the 1st round scenario... and I thinking I was alone, well, guess we are never alone

[Pak40]

Christ! I can't believe you just publically posted these spoilers for all other RD tournyment members. Most of us arn't even half way through the battle but now everyone knows that we can expect some reinfocements.

In the future please wait until after the next round has started before posting spoilers or just write to the tournyment moderators.

[jKMkIII]

When I am whining/giving constructive critisism about scenario it should not be taken too heavily.

Also I don't believe anything I said would help anyone in game. So I said reinforcements are coming, but how much that really helps...

I myself could not really belive I could create any interesting scenarios, sounds too much work to me And I prefer scenarios when playing against people, and remember that many scenarios I liked were done by same gang.

But I believe open discussion is shortest way to improve things, to get even better scenarios in future. It could be true that should have waited before round 1 is over before say anything.

Basic idea of using reinforcements is excellent, but if two games are played at very different speed it can cause that other player is in much better situation.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by jKMkIII:

Also I don't believe anything I said would help anyone in game. So I said reinforcements are coming, but how much that really helps...

I'm assuming you're Jager...

Don't you see that you just perpetuated the very thing that you're complaining about??? You told us that there are reinforcements on both sides and that it comprises a large portion of the overall forces. The only thing that you didn't state is where the reinforcements are coming in.

Now I know that I'm going to have to alter my attack and defense based on these facts.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[JessRobinson]

A longtime reader and frequent lurker here.

I'm participating in the RD tourney and I'm in the midst of both of my games. I have two comments:

1) Perhaps if the scenario designer included in the briefing for each side the reinforcement schedule, by unit and by turn, the problem would be mitigated. There's still the issue of entry point for reinforcements, which is a far less of an problem in my mind.

2) The Round 1 scenario is excellent! I recommend to all players to download it from the RD web site and play as Axis on the attack. No peeking though.

Jess

[ December 11, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: JessRobinson ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Well I'm in the RD tourney, but reinforcements and where they show up when is not something I considered a concern. Depending upon one's initial setup strategy ofcourse, one might want to readjust things with this knowledge. In my case it doesn't alter a thing, on either side. And, to me the arty is too delayed to setup a precise barrage but I suppose one could use the TRP's, at least the Russian could. Frankly, I was surprised to see reinforcements. But again, it doesn't change my strategy at all.

[jKMkIII]

Originally posted by Pak40:

I'm assuming you're Jager...

But as you can see I am not Jager, I am jKMkIII

Don't you see that you just perpetuated the very thing that you're complaining about??? You told us that there are reinforcements on both sides and that it comprises a large portion of the overall forces. The only thing that you didn't state is where the reinforcements are coming in.

At least from my post you do not know where, when and how much. So with information from my post you have no way of setting artillery barrage in middle of my reinforcements, do you.

But I am sorry if information from my post ruined your joy.

Now I know that I'm going to have to alter my attack and defense based on these facts.

Knowing that some will come at some point. How are you going to change your plans?

I do not mind if enemy knows more than I do, I do not even care if he would know exact amount of my reinforcements and when they are coming.

But when I get artillery barrage middle of my reinforcements 30s after they appear on map it is not nice.

[edited because had time estimate for artillery, and it was way off...given correct estimate for artillery it is not that bad to receive artillery on first turn when reinforcements arrive, but not nice anyway]

[ December 12, 2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: jKMkIII ]

[Pak40]

Originally posted by jKMkIII:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Now I know that I'm going to have to alter my attack and defense based on these facts.

Knowing that some will come at some point. How are you going to change your plans?

</font>

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Pak40:

Christ! I can't believe you just...

...and other same kind posts.

LOL... I'm touched

If you excuse me, I advocate the contrary...

Every one should read, and every one should know what only a few (I'm going by your judgment here) privileged knew.

Of course, now it is too late for most of the players (to them, I'm sorry), next time a thing like this happens, I will post it earlier myself.

Just one more thing, a small one...

...Then he finds out that the enemy will be getting reinforcement soon...

It is not "reinforcement", it is "teleportment"... Yes, yes, I meant those from star trek and Cpt. Kirk

[ December 13, 2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by jKMkIII:

Basic idea of using reinforcements is excellent, but...

...but leave "reinforcements" out of small maps, or they run the risk of becoming “teleportments".