Public Demand: Who wants to see Titans of TH, RD, BoB clashing?

[Treeburst155]

I'm with you, Broken, on just about everything on your list, except I have nothing against AT mines.

Treeburst155 out.

[MajorTaktik]

Hello,

Here are my preferences. I can objectively say that I am subjective regarding my preferences, but failure to comply is not a show-stopper for me

- I like Scipio's medium class armor rule, which is similar to the Short 75. If not this, then I would prefer Short 75, but at least add M10s and Wolverines to provide the Amis with some dueling ability over 700+ meters.

- Definate restrictions on arty. Again, I like Scipio's rules for this, but if only Aki and I have used these before, then at least keep the points down and nothing bigger than 120mm.

- No Flak trucks

- I would prefer no VG, FJ, GJ and Allied Airborne types regarding infantry. Actually, we don't need infantry at all and can have just tanks and vehicles

Anyway, I will abide by the majority without putting up a stink Its all good.

Craig

[Fionn]

I don't buy that a tournament in which we each play eachother just ONCE BUT 4 of us play under 1 system ( different game parameters entirely ( scenarios designed by others... often, by the admission of the designers, massively unbalanced scenarios etc) ) and the other 3 play in balanced QBs can be fair.

I can easily see a situation in which one of us gets screwed by being on the weak side of 3 or 4 of the ROW tourney games and plays the top players in them. In that situation this player would be absolutely massacred since as good players we are ALL able to capitalise on small advantages MUCH, MUCH more than weak or average players.

We can turn a 1 platoon advantage in a 1 Bn game into a decisive game-winning advantage quite easily. In balanced QBs that's no problem since we all start off even but in unbalanced scenarios that isn't the case.

If ALL games were to be unbalanced scenarios then that'd be fine since NABLA scoring ( or some alternative) could take care of any imbalances BUT it is IMPOSSIBLE to do that when half the games are balanced QBs and the other half are unbalanced scenarios. You just cannot use one, consistent, standardised scoring system for two such wildly different game forms.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% fine with playing 7 unbalanced scenarios and using NABLA scoring (or some variant) to figure out who wins. I'm also fine with playing 7 balanced QBs and determining who wins from those. In either case the game parameters for ALL SEVEN GAMES will be the same so the end result will be fair.

The current system just won't be fair. At least one, probably 2 or 3 of the participants are going to get screwed in the matchups. I've done enough statistics etc to be sure about that.

As to the use of rules etc...

I've talked with some tourney and ladder organisers I know and have asked them to compare win%es by nationality. Using Long and Short 75 rules the Germans win roughly 51% of games. The Allies win roughly 49% of games. The 2% difference is quite simply accounted for by the fact that top players often prefer to play as the Germans. The take home message is that the rules AS WRITTEN are as close to 50/50 balance as possible.

Allowing 76mm or 17 pounder vehicles under Short 75 rules would completely unbalance them. I've played several test games with 17 pounder and 76mm Allied tanks allowed vs Pz IVs and I don't hesitate in saying that a massive misbalance resulted. I found it almost impossible to win the armour on armour battle even when greatly outnumbering the Allied armour.

The rules, as written, are more balanced than any variations on them. And FWIW I've just finished a recon rules defence vs a couple of Bns of German VG, 81mm arty and Pumas using only British Line infantry ( they of the 160mm FP), 81mm arty and Stuarts so I don't just play as the Germans and talk about balance cause it favours me. I play as the Allies too ( I have to to experience the game from the Allied side and assess balance) and so have a vested interest in ensuring the Allies have as close to a 50% win chance as possible.

I think all further discussion re: parameters is a bit pointless until we settle whether we are actually going to play any QBs at all.

As I see it the options are:

1. 7 QBs.

2. 7 Scenarios.

3. A mixture of both.

I won't play under option 3 as :

a) I KNOW someone is going to get screwed by the draw ( it is a statistical certainty)

I don't want to be the guy who is screwed.

c) ( as importantly) I don't want to be someone who gets an advantage because another good player got screwed by the draw.

In short I want my placing to be determined by fair games played sportingly. I don't want it cheapened by knowing that someone should have beaten me but didn't cause the draw screwed him. Maybe no-one else would know that but I'd know and that's just not acceptable to me.

[Combat Opinion Staff]

I can easily see a situation in which one of us gets screwed by being on the weak side of 3 or 4 of the ROW tourney games and plays the top players in them.

I brought up the same point in my last post before editing it out. Now I know I'm not paranoid.

Swamp

[Wreck]

I don't buy that a tournament in which we each play each other just ONCE BUT 4 of us play under 1 system ( different game parameters entirely ( scenarios designed by others... often, by the admission of the designers, massively unbalanced scenarios etc) ) and the other 3 play in balanced QBs can be fair.

Not true. Each of us plays each scenario. And while I think you are getting how Nabla's works, you are still not understanding how "integer Nabla" works. There is no uniform advantage to be gained.

I can easily see a situation in which one of us gets screwed by being on the weak side of 3 or 4 of the ROW tourney games and plays the top players in them. In that situation this player would be absolutely massacred since as good players we are ALL able to capitalise on small advantages MUCH, MUCH more than weak or average players.

If it is true -- and I am not sure it is -- that even a small imbalance will snowball, it will be true for all four games played of the particular scenario. Under integer Nabla, the four "victors" (guys with the imbalance favoring them) have 6 points to split among themselves. 3-2-1-0. The four "losers" also have 6 points. So the "loser" who does best at preventing the snowball effect is, in fact, a winner -- 3 points. The "victor" who does worst at exploiting his advantage will get zero points.

In short, it DOES NOT MATTER if a particular scenario is balanced or not. What matters is, that it is the SAME battle played by all 4 pairs of players.

If you want me to run through how it works, I am happy to. With examples.

If ALL games were to be unbalanced scenarios then that'd be fine since NABLA scoring ( or some alternative) could take care of any imbalances BUT it is IMPOSSIBLE to do that when half the games are balanced QBs and the other half are unbalanced scenarios. You just cannot use one, consistent, standardised scoring system for two such wildly different game forms.

No. There is no difference between a balanced battle and an imbalanced one. All that matters is the *relationships* between the scores of the four players on each side of a battle.

This is, in fact, a huge strength of the system. Say that TB155 happens to generate a map that is not fair for an defense, say. We all play on it, and all four defenders discover an unassailable position, and they all "win" the scenario. Is that a problem for us? No. They are rated against each other (the other defenders that is), not against the attackers (per se). Of course, the points the attackers are getting are related to those the defenders get. Whichever defender gets 3 points, his attacker gets 0. The defender getting 2 points, his attacker gets 1. Etc.

Again: using the integer Nabla scoring system, we don't need balanced scenarios. If some are balanced, fine, no problem. If not, no problem. We don't need to worry about it, and we don't have to design the scenarios to be balanced.

[Combat Opinion Staff]

It's weird to not care if the scenarios are balanced. I think they should all be balanced. Nabla looks like it will work, but there will be goofy factors attributed to different play styles matching up in unbalanced(uncompetitive) scenarios, in my opinion. Anyway, whatever Treeburst goes with I will be happy to play.

Swamp

Edit: speling

[ June 10, 2002, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Combat Opinion Staff ]

[Treeburst155]

Hmmm....that makes two of you. I must say I don't understand the reasoning at all. I think you guys underestimate or don't fully understand the Nabla system. However, I'm willing to go with seven QB type battles.

I think each participant should lay out detailed parameters for one battle by stepping through every choice available when creating a QB. Each person should also pick a force purchase ruleset to go with his QB. Once this is done I will draw one of the scenarios (creator's name) out of a hat and it will be discarded. The rest will be built by me, using the QB parameters each player chose. I will doctor up the map a little. Setup zones and map size will match what would be created by a QB.

This will give us our scenarios, and every player but one will get to have his ideal game in the tourney. Sound good? If so, start clicking through the QB setup screens and post the parameters you want for "your" QB here. Don't forget to choose a ruleset too.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Good post, Wreck. I'm going to see if I can say the same thing in a different way.

Suppose one player is "the best". "The best" will always score 3 points no matter which side he plays of any scenario. If he scores only two points then he is not "the best". It does not matter which scenario/side you find yourself playing when you meet "the best". He will get 3 points for that scenario, even if he's playing the weak side of a scenario. You will get 0 points simply because he will get three.

Keep in mind if you manage to score one point in your game against "the best", then that means two people did better than "the best" because two players will get three points for each scenario. It really doesn't matter what situation you find yourself in when you meet "the best". When you're playing "the best" you automatically become "the worst" for that scenario because "the best" will always create "the worst".

Everybody meets "the best" one time. Everybody pays the price of that meeting, regardless of the meeting place.

Treeburst155 out.

[ June 10, 2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Combat Opinion Staff]

I think Fionn understands Nabla, and he makes a good point. Who wants to match up against say 2 or 3 QB masters in the QB games. Or whatever masters in whatever kind of battle it is. I guess that's what he's saying. Is he also saying who wants to get stuck with say allies 4-7 times when they are more of a german expert? Also I think scenarios where say the attacker wins every time aren't as good a judge as scenarios where it's more even. And lastly, the 1-4 points, aren't they a little unrepresenting. Anyway, these are minor notes by me and I will be happy to play whatever is decided upon.

Swamp

[Broken]

I agree with Wreck and TB155, it doesn't matter if the scenarios are balanced or unbalanced, you are really competing with the other three players playing the same side of a particular scenario. To be fair, you should be sided with each player exactly three times. Is it possible to arrange seven scenarios of eight players so that each player is opposed by every other player once and sided with every other player three times? If so, does anyone know the trick for making the seven seating charts? For example,

Scenario 1

1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8,

Scenario 2

1 - 3

2 - 4

5 - 7

6 - 8, etc.

[Wreck]

Swamp:

I know what you are saying about playing all QB masters. That is, in fact, a means in which the system could be unfair (in a sense). Like, I hope not to meet you there. But the bottom line is that we must have 7 battles in order for everyone to go head to head at least once with everyone else. (This is not absolutely necessary, but it *is* nice.)

This might be a good reason to avoid MEs, which I would expect TH players to dominate. But then again, I think mopping up at MEs is part of what makes a good CM player. I would think it a poorer contest to only do QBs (or QB-style), or to only do scenarios. I think mastery of all types of battles is part of what we think of when we talk about titans of CM.

Incidentally, for those worried about imbalanced scenarios, there is not likely to be *that* much of it. There will be at least one of the new scenarios that is imbalanced; possibly others. We don't know and they are intentionally not telling, to keep the spice in things. But given that these are scenarios designed and tested by B&T, I expect several should be very nicely balanced already. And where there is imbalance, I expect it is not too great -- i.e., a 60-40 median sort of battle, not a 90-10.

Imbalanced QBs are possible and I think we should play some (i.e. normal old attack/defend is, IMO, imbalanced). But this is subject to negotiation.

[Fionn]

Wreck said "Not true. Each of us plays each scenario."

I never said we didn't play each scenario. If you reread what I said you will see that I simply objected to the fact that since there are only 4 scenarios and we each need to play 7 games that this would necessitate us playing 4 games under one set of rules and parameters against 4 opponents and the other 3 games under ENTIRELY different parameters and rules against the next 3 opponents. THAT is, in my experience ( CMMC, tourneys, real life sporting and quiz competitions etc) a recipe for disaster. I have never, ever seen a competition which is formulated along these lines work satisfactorily.

If we EACH had to play 7 scenarios and 7 QBs or JUST 7 scenarios or JUST 7 QBs then that'd be fine. But playing half scenarios ( unbalanced and scored using NABLA or some variant) and half QBs ( all parameters up for discussion amongst the players, totally balanced points etc) is just a recipe for disaster and I'd rather avoid getting embroiled in something I have no confidence in than go in and be proven right half-way through. If I'd ever seen such a compromise solution working I'd be willing to give it a shot but I've never, ever seen such a compromise solution working. Not once. ( I define working as both returning a fair result AND ensuring that no players feel cheated by the tournament formulation.)

Wreck,

I don't have a problem with the NABLA scoring etc. I understand precisely how it works as I had some behind the scenes input into it and am familiar with similar scoring systems from several other game systems. I am not objecting to NABLA scoring at all. I am objecting to the fact that we play half the games under 1 system and half the games under another completely different system. That's just not on. The first system ( unbalanced scenarios) requires NABLA scoring. The second, balanced QBs does NOT require NABLA scoring but a simple additive process whereby total end scores are calculated. We are then being asked to combine NABLA scoring for the scenarios ( which will be in one format) with sum scores from the QBs ( which will be in another format) and accept that no imbalance will be introduced by the subjective maths involved in integrating the two scoring systems. No, even with the best intentions in the world this simply isn't possible.

All of the above is in ADDITION to the fact that I do think someone/some people are going to get screwed with the draw and be forced to play several unbalanced scenarios against the better players and do MUCH worse relative to these guys than they would do if they were beginning play in a balanced QB. Again this isn't a problem if ALL games are unbalanced scenarios or ALL games are balanced QBs BUT when half are of one type and the other half are of the other I can foresee a situation where the relative rankings will be determined more by who we play in QBs and Scenarios than by the relative skills of the various players. You can refer to NABLA etc as much as you want but the basic end point is that I've done a few years of statistics, participated in a lot of tournaments ( in CM and RL) which use variants of relative scoring systems similar to NABLA and I see the imbalance coming down to mixing and matching battle types within the one tournament.

One thing for people to think about:

Are you all familiar with the Battle of Trafalgar? I'm going to assume that most of you have only heard of it and don't know some of the fascinating statistical issues which occured during the battle and proved proof for one of the most enduring rules of warfare of all time.

Basically Nelson was facing a stronger French fleet which was, however, divided into two forces. He split his forces in a VERY unconventional manner ( not mirroring the French division proportions at all). People put this down to his genius and for a very long time no-one really explained precisely why Nelson split his force as he did.

Then along came someone who just used a nice old-fashioned n(squared) rule whereby the assumption was made that each ship class in each fleet had, roughly, the same combat power and that the total combat power of a fleet was equal to the square of the combat powers of the ships in the fleet.

It was also assumed that damage would be inflicted on the enemy in proportion to the relative strengths of the squares of the previously determined combat powers of the two fleets. Anyways, when this equation was applied to the battle it was found that Nelson's division of forces was the optimum division possible.

He divided his forces so that one strong force would overwhelm one enemy force whilst a much weaker British force would simply keep the other French force occupied until such time as the first British force could intervene after wiping out the 1st French portion.

It is the N(squared) law of combat and holds true even today. A force with a 50% force advantage should inflict casualties on the enemy at a rate slightly over twice the rate the enemy inflicts casualties on it, all other things being equal.

Since QBs will feature balanced forces there is no " initial squared force imbalance". Unbalanced scenarios WILL feature strong "initial squared force imbalances" and THEREIN lies the crucial fundamental flaw with the current system.

This law of combat has held good for the past several thousand years and if the tournament organisers ignore its effects the tournament will, IMO, pay the price. As I said before I have zero problem with any or all of the rest of you taking part in this tournament under such unbalanced conditions but if I win or lose I want it to be because of relative skill levels, not because of a combination of the luck of draw and one of the oldest rules of warfare ( FWIW you can see this same logic at work with the Napoleonic Fans ( not fanatics but a description of the manner in which his march columns advanced) and his division of forces when trying to hold off enemy reinforcements from a decisive battlefield. I personally think the Austrian campaigns are probably the best examples of this if any of you care to read up on it to convince yourselves of the essential correctness of what I say.)

Treeburst,

I disagree with some details but there's no point in arguing over details when there are fundamental flaws which are of greater import. The basic point is that the relative placing of the 8 players is important. What is important is not JUST saying who is the best and then not listing the placings of the other 7. IF all you say is true then the current setup should prove who is best ( it won't but, again, that's not the fundamental flaw so I won't waste everyone's time debating it). However the current system WILL NOT accurately determine the relative positions of the others.

Swamp,

Oh I think that everyone involved should get Allies and Germans equal amounts of times. E.g. 2 Allied defences, 2 Allied attacks, 2 German defences, 2 German attacks ( if 9 people were in the tourney). I would find it somewhat objectionable to label someone the "best" player if he only ever played Germans . No, I think the best player should be the one who has shown he can master all the nations in the game irrespective of their role given.

Broken!,

I think you're missing the point.

IF Wreck and Treeburst were talking about playing 7 SCENARIOS (or 7 QBs) then that'd be fine with me since all games in the tournament would be relatively internally consistent ( an important issue with all tourneys and computer programmes as I've discovered over the years... Probably the reason CM is so succesful is down mostly to the fact that it is very, very, very internally consistent. If it wasn't internally consistent to the extent that it is it would just have been a minor hit among the hard core of wargame hobbyists. Internal consistency is also the reason CM:BB is so good. Everything has been improved in a relatively consistent manner to a relatively comparable level.).

What Wreck and Treeburst ARE talking about is 4 SCENARIOS and 3 QBs. That is fine if you believe unbalanced scenarios and balanced QBs are directly comparable. We all know that they are not. Wreck and Treeburst even agree with this. That is why they are having the 4 scenarios decided according to a variant of the NABLA system while the QBs will be decided purely on the basis of who scores the most points.

Of course since the 1-4 variant NABLA system CANNOT be related to the % scores which determine who wins a QB Wreck and Treeburst wish to convert the % scores into relative scores ( again, 1-4) whereby the guy who gets the most points gets a 4 and so on until the guy who gets the least points gets a 1. Of course this means that someone who scored 80% in each QB would BEAT a person who scored 90% in 1 and 79% in the other 2. The first person would get 11 points ( out of a maximum of 12) with an average of only 80%. Meanwhile the other guy would have an average of 82% would get only 10 points.

Furthermore since no-one has to play ALL other players in QBs ( each player would have to play only 3 others) it is quite possible that the above situation could occur... A situation in which the 1st and 2nd top players in the QB section actually don't meet eachother in the QBs at all.

All in all it is messy, statistically questionable and could VERY easily end up in a situation where a player with a LOWER AVERAGE SCORE "wins" the QB section without ever having played the guy who comes 2nd ( but has a higher score).

I can easily see how that would end up leaving the guy who came 2nd feeling very, very cheated.

There are several other flaws in the system along these lines... These flaws will become bones of contention as play progresses and more of the players come to see them and understand their unfair side-effects.

Honestly, the only way to run something like this is to have ALL 7 games be either QBs or scenarios so that EVERYONE gets to play everyone else under roughly the same conditions. Obviously if you want to maximise the initial similarity of game parameters then 7 QBs under one set of purchase rules are the way to go.

Again, I'd like to emphasise that none of the above is an attack on anyone etc. I simply see some in the current system which will yield results in which the best player does NOT win and therefore I'm speaking out. I'm not absolutely committed to playing in this so if you don't want me that's fine but as my sig says "Those who are silent are assumed to consent." That sort of thinking let things like the inquisition and pogroms occur and while this certainly isn't on the same scale of importance the principle is one I hold to... Sorry for the sermon at the end but I just wanted to be sure that everyone involved knows it isn't personal. I just want the fairest tournament format possible... even if that means I come last instead of 5th or 6th... and I've lived my whole life speaking out for what I believe in... even if the consequences are personally detrimental. So, please, it isn't personal and if people think this is too much trouble just say so and I'll happily drop out. I don't want to create trouble but neither do I want to screw any of the other 7 players over during the tournament when flaws I foresaw raise their heads.

[Wreck]

Fionn:

I appreciate that you "get" Nabla. Good! Saves me endless typing.

I do not believe there is any particular scoring system that is related to "types" of games. Integer Nabla is the best system for what we are talking about doing. But it would also be the best (IMO) for 7 vanilla QBs. And it would also be best for 7 scenarios.

So, I disagree when you say we are playing half the games "under one system" and half under another. We are playing all under one system: Integer Nabla. (At least, that's what I propose to do.) All of the games -- including QBs -- may be imbalanced. Some will be imbalanced intentionally. But they all might be imbalanced unintentionally. And that includes QBs. Attack/defense is going to be imbalanced unless we negotiate the params to death, something I am not eager to do among eight players (it is hard enough with two). And even then, we might get it wrong! Or, Treeburst might generate a map, completely innocently, in such a way as to make the scenario unfair. There are many ways imbalance could happen in a scenario that we (or a majority of us) think is even. So I take exception to your statement that "the... balanced QBs does NOT require NABLA scoring but a simple additive process". Only if they are truly even can they avoid needing Nabla. And we cannot know if they are even. We will probably have a good idea, yes. So they are not likely to be more imbalanced than say 60-40 or 55-45. But even that is too much. Meanwhile, using Nabla with one or more truly even battle(s) does not hurt.

There is only one real downside to using Integer Nabla. And that is, that if you have some truly even (50-50) scenarios, then you can compare all the players to each other, not just all the attackers to other attackers and all the defenders to other defenders. You can extract slightly more information per battle about who is best. I see the advantage, but I think the practical world considerations outweigh it completely. If we have even one battle that is really 55-45 but we think is balanced, for whatever reason, then Nabla is superior.

So, there are a couple of major downsides if we use non-Nabla. There is little downside to using it. That's my view on it.

[Wreck]

What Wreck and Treeburst ARE talking about is 4 SCENARIOS and 3 QBs. That is fine if you believe unbalanced scenarios and balanced QBs are directly comparable. We all know that they are not. Wreck and Treeburst even agree with this. That is why they are having the 4 scenarios decided according to a variant of the NABLA system while the QBs will be decided purely on the basis of who scores the most points.

It is true that I agree that "unbalanced scenarios and balanced QBs are [not] directly comparable". But that understates it. I don't think any two different games/scenarios are comparable. Thought experiment: I scored 60-40 in a certain scenario or quickbattle. Am I better than someone who scored 75-25 on some other scenario or quickbattle?

To compare any series of games, you have to fudge. Indeed, using the numbers that CM reports is already fudging. Does anyone think that two battles each ending 75-25 are the same? No, of course not.

The game-reported scores will be used in awarding points for all games -- scenarios and QBs. The scoring for the QBs will not be decided on who scores the most points. They will be decided on which attacker scores the most points (and conversely, which defender).

[Wreck]

... someone who scored 80% in each QB would BEAT a person who scored 90% in 1 and 79% in the other 2. The first person would get 11 points ( out of a maximum of 12) with an average of only 80%. Meanwhile the other guy would have an average of 82% would get only 10 points.

Generally correct. It is more complicated than you pose, because there are two other games. You are assuming that the other players all scored lower than the 80% guy, i.e., the scores look like this:

90-10, 80-20, 40-60, 35-65

80-20, 79-21, 40-60, 35-65

80-20, 79-21, 40-60, 35-65

In which case, yes, the guy who scored the 90 does get one less point. I don't see that as a problem, BTW. The idea that the 80-scorer is inferior reflects the idea that summed scores is some higher way true. Summed scores is OK as a system for even battles, but I see nothing special about it. I don't see that either player is superior from the data above.

Note that the results might also be this:

90-10, 85-15, 85-15, 80-20

80-20, 79-21, 40-60, 35-65

80-20, 79-21, 40-60, 35-65

In which case, using Integer Nabla the guy scoring 90 outscores the steady 80 by one point. The context is important.

[ June 10, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Wreck ]

[Wreck]

Indentally, Fionn is on to a feature (which may be a strength or weakness, depending on your POV) of the Integer Nabla system with the 80-scorer example.

Integer Nabla emphasizes small differences in score, turning them into something larger. A guy getting one less on score in a battle than another guy has underscored him by a small percentage -- about 1.5% on average. (I.e., if Fionn scores 60-40 in a battle and I score 59-41, I have scored 1.6% fewer points.) This is a small difference. When we plug the results into Integer Nabla, then Fionn will score at least one more point than I do. Since the total awarded for a game is 12 points (using 3-2-1-0), that means he gets a substantially higher fraction of total score awarded.

Is that a bug, or a feature?

I think it is a feature.

[Wreck]

Regarding the hypothetic "square effect" of playing variable quality opponents in imbalanced scenarios.

I see what Fionn is saying. I don't know that the effect is square (or nonlinear at all), but what if it is?

First off, we can say that the tourney is fair going into it, as long as the game assignments are random. No player has a higher chance to be assigned to a "bad" player in any particular game, than any other player.

After the assignments are out, then we might say that it is unfair. And that's bad, I guess. But at least at the highest level, the tourney as proposed is fair.

Second, I note that the uneven-players-non-linear effect (if it exists) means more than just not mixing even and uneven scenarios. Rather, it means that all scenarios must have the exact same balance. A 50-50 scenario doesn't mix with a 60-40, but then neither does a 70-30. Only a set of scenarios *all* 60-40 can be fair. (That's using Nablas. Without a relative scoring system, all scenarios must be 50-50.)

So if we believe in this effect, and we are not satisfied with accepting the luck of the draw in assignments, we must give up the ROWII scenarios. (Indeed, ROWII itself might be seen as suspect.)

Third point. Even limiting ourselves to 7 quickbattles, we still must have them be all the same balance. Practically speaking, the only balance we are remotely likely to be able to establish for 7 battles is "even" -- 50-50. So much for uneven battles. And it gets worse: the chance that all ten of us (8 players, and TB155 and WineCape, who definitely have a say), are likely to agree on balance that is *actually* 50-50 for all battles is pretty slim. So, the only real fair way to do it would be to let the individual pairs of players negotiate what they think are fair battles, using I-cut-you-choose type principles.

That would work, of course. But it limits the scope of battles quite a bit. It makes negotiating terms a key aspect of the tourney, which I don't think it should be. And worst, it makes all the battle incomparable to each other. So there won't be a lot of cross-comparison possible.

My take on things:

I believe the uneven-players-non-linear effect is plausible, but certainly not proven. If it does exist, I doubt it is as sharp as a square law. Perhaps n*log(n). If it is sufficiently small then the effect of player skill should outweigh it. But even if it is not small, I am willing to take my chances on luck of the draw.

[Fionn]

Wreck,

Let me restate this just so we're clear. My main issue is NOT with NABLA scoring... I've said this several times. As far as I'm concerned you can use NABLA, NABLA integer or straight score sums to figure out who wins so long as ALL GAMES ARE PLAYED WITH THE SAME PARAMETERS.

To argue that the vast change in parameters from some intentionally unbalanced scenarios to points balanced QBs won't introduce major problems is, IMO, naive.

And now to the section of your post where you prove my point:

" Thought experiment: I scored 60-40 in a certain scenario or quickbattle. Am I better than someone who scored 75-25 on some other scenario or quickbattle? "

No BUT so long as you are both playing a QB with the same parameters the scores are a LOT more comparable than if your 60-40 score was gained in a 3000 point ME QB and the other guy's 75-25 score was gotten in a scenario which featured him attacking an enemy one quarter of his strength.

Your point simply highlights the possible problems inherent in trying to assert that you can compare balanced QB scores with unbalanced scenario scores. Your 60-40 win in a balanced QB is a fine score but the other guy's 75-25 victory might actually be an absolutely pitiful performance. I don't have faith in the system you suggest for reconciling the two scores gained under such different parameters and converting them into a meaningful combined score.

"Generally correct. It is more complicated than you pose, because there are two other games. "

Of course it CAN be more complicated than that BUT the KEY POINT is that I've shown how a player with a higher average score can be the loser using the current system. I think that's pretty damned nuts.

I know that if I got a higher average score than everyone else then I'd expect to be the winner. Your proposed system doesn't guarantee that. Why doesn't it? Simple, because you've had to change the purity of sum % scores into NABLA integers for the QBs so that they can be compared to NABLA integers generated from unbalanced scenarios. I am saying that it makes a lot more sense to simply avoid the whole problem by just agreeing to play 7 QBs.

That way you just add up all the scores, generate the top 2 or 3 players and have them play off against eachother. Simple, effective and avoids any possibility of having people get screwed over by the conversion of scores into integers etc.

" After the assignments are out, then we might say that it is unfair. And that's bad, I guess. But at least at the highest level, the tourney as proposed is fair."

So it is OK if the tourney is fair until the draw is actually made (IOW fair in theory) but you accept that it might not be fair AFTER the draw is made ( IOW unfair in practice) and you are OK with this? No, the system has to be fair in practice or, at least, be fair until such time as a player makes mistakes in his force purchases/negotiations ( since those mistakes are the player's own responsibility and therefore constitute part of what makes the "best players" different from the rest of us).

Hmm, I'm not sure I'd agree that a system which is fair UNTIL the draw of opponents is made is actually a good one. We need a system which is fair IN PRACTICE and not just in LIMITED THEORY.

re: the square law...

Wreck, I suggest you read up on Trafalgar and Napoleon's Austrian campaign. It should convince you ( especially the Trafalgar model since it was the proof of concept model).

" But even if it is not small, I am willing to take my chances on luck of the draw. "

And I don't think that's fair on everyone. IF you accept that the system as proposed may not be fair due to the pattern of matchups then you are basically saying that someone, somewhere is going to get screwed by the matchups. Sure, the odds are it won't be you but don't you agree that (as one of the favourites) it would cheapen your victories?

I mean, seriously, isn't being able to look yourself in the eye when you shave in the morning and know that the whole system is fair to everyone more important than winning?

[Wreck]

the KEY POINT is that I've shown how a player with a higher average score can be the loser using the current system. I think that's pretty damned nuts.

On this we will just have to disagree. I don't think average score is better or worse than lots of other ways one can aggregate scores. Most of the other ways, including Nabla scoring and Integer Nabla, have the feature that the a lower average scorer can beat a higher one. In all cases, it is rare. Higher score clearly correlates with winningness. But the correlation is not absolute.

[Treeburst155]

"In Defense Of The Nabla System" by Wreck. I love it!!

It is my belief there is absolutely no such thing as an even battle. Even if there was, there would be no practical way to prove it's existence.

Therefore, a scenario is a scenario, no matter if it is human designed or a QB. They are all unbalanced to one degree or another by virtue of the fact that the maps are not symmetrical and the forces are different. By using QBs and scenarios we are testing a wider range of CM skills than if we used just one or the other type of battle.

Scheduling of matches cannot be perfect. Here are the imperfections:

1) all players will not be compared to every other player the same number of times. By compared, I mean play the same side of a given scenario.

2) attack/defend duties will not be split evenly for all players

3) side distribution will not be even for all players.

The program does a brute force crunch to minimize these issues, but there is no perfect solution to them. You can only have so many scheduling criteria and expect it all to work out. Most important is that each player play each scenario one time, and that each player play every other player one time. These two things make the rest impossible to achieve. They can be minimized however.

No two contests against "the best" will be exactly the same regardless of the scenarios used. Somebody could always feel they ran up against "the best" in a less than optimal situation.

The absolute fairest way, but less fun for players IMO, is to do mirrored QBs with players getting the map beforehand to study. This is so both players can get familiar with both sides of the map before either game begins.

Regarding degrees of victory and how it falls into the Nabla system. To get points closely related to your relative performance we would have to use the regular Nabla system, which requires an accurate median.

The Integer Nabla is more competitive, but less of a reflection of your actual performance relative to the others who played the same side of the scenario you did. For this reason, it answers Fionn's concerns. You can score no worse than three points less than "the best" for a given scenario. It does not matter how much "the best" can capitalize on his advantage in a highly unbalanced scenario. You can score no less than zero. This is what everyone else will score against "the best" too, even if their degree of loss is less than yours due to a more balanced scenario.

Treeburst155 out.

[ June 10, 2002, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Wreck]

Regarding the "square law" and fairness.

First, you were using the square law only *analogically*, at least originally. Your analysis of Trafalgar, the domain was in number of ships, the force available on both side. You then analogized the square law effect in military force found there to a different thing: a proposed "variable player skill in imbalanced scenarios" effect on CM play.

The idea was that, if between two average players, a scenario averages 60-40 in result, then between two really great players the average result would be more skewed. Perhaps 75-25. That, in itself, is no problem for Nablas, as has been pointed out. But then you add in the variable player skill. Perhaps there is one player among us, head and shoulders above the others. If you happen to draw him in an imbalanced scenario, then you may get a disproportionately bad effect. Of course, the scoring system still takes care of it, by and large. But if you throw in a certain variability due to game mechanics, then perhaps playing a really good player is disproportionately bad in an imbalanced scenario.

This is all very tenuous reasoning to me. I am not even sure such a "variable player strength in imbalanced scenarios" effect exists. Analogizing to military force proves nothing. If it does exist, I doubt it will cause any serious problems when scored with Nablas. (Though I will concede that it would cause problems with simple scoring by sums -- but then I am against that simple scoring method.) And if I wrong twice, and the problem actually exists *and* is not fully addressed by Integer Nablas, then I am willing to submit to the luck of the draw. It is not like anyone here really knows who the 800 pound gorilla is, if there is one.

[Redwolf]

Don't know if that is my business or not, but what the hell:

I agree with Fionn that the mix of scenarios and QBs is not good for this competition, it leaves too many valid hooks to claim that the result is overly dependent on luck. If at all, everyone had to play everyone else twice, scenario and QB.

I agree that MEs shouldn't be the mode of competition either, while they tend to be "fair", they are a too specialized form of battle.

I do not think playrs should see the battlefield beforehand in self-buying battles. The gun-optimization that will follow makes actual gameplay much different. See my above posts. Umpires taking existing designed maps and describing it to players in Quickbattle parameters sounds better.

Attack/defense and mixed weather/time will probably make good for those players who are better in scenarios than in QBs, as will the designed maps.

[ June 10, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Treeburst155]

Fionn,

The highest average score may not win. To significantly reduce this possibility the full Nabla System with a median would be required.

I understand what you are saying now. This fact is what makes the Integer Nabla highly competitive. Beating somebody 95-5 will not generate a big lead. You would still have to play very will in the other games. The big victory offers no padding. Note that the converse is also true. A big loss will not knock you out of the running.

Treeburst155 out.

[ June 10, 2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Wreck]

One other point on the luck of the draw and the hypothesized "variable player skill in inbalanced games" effect. If the effect is large enough, then yes it is a problem. But if it is small it is not. The reason is simply that random factors in the games themselves will swamp it. There are many points in a game where the game result can measurably move based on a simple "die roll". For example a tank-on-tank confrontation: first kill wins big. Random factors are numerous, and expected to even out over time. Think of luck of the draw as one of them. Only if it is very large -- that is, larger than the effect of several in-game results -- are we ever likely to notice it.

I don't think it is large. Actually the more I think about it, I don't think the effect exists at all with Integral Nabla. But surely if it does, it's small.

[Fionn]

Mike,

Maybe they can't ALL be balanced but IF 1 more person was added one could:

a) ensure everyone played 2 defences as allies, 2 as German, 2 attacks as German and 2 defences as German.

8 QBs using similar parameter s( E.g Panther/76 rules and modest hills, light trees, rural) are going to be more internally comparable than the current mishmash system.

In short I still think the 3 QBs, 4 unbalanced scenarios thing is just asking for trouble and I have no desire to be a part of it.

" The Integer Nabla is more competitive, but less of a reflection of your actual performance relative to the others who played the same side of the scenario you did. For this reason, it answers Fionn's concerns."

Absolutely incorrect... You seem not to have taken in what my concerns actually are. My concern is NOT that someone will lose badly. I expect some people to lose badly in games. My concern is to ensure that EVERYONE should be rated fairly RELATIVE TO EACHOTHER.

I truly have difficulty understanding how you can be happy with a system which is designed to pit the "top 8 players" against eachother and yet ADMIT that the system you are settling on is " less of a reflection of your actual performance relative to the others". I really would have thought that in a non-knockout tourney getting PROPER relative ratings would be the most important thing.

" You can score no worse than three points less than "the best" for a given scenario. It does not matter how much "the best" can capitalize on his advantage in a highly unbalanced scenario."

Yeah, it does, since the very initial imbalance can prevent someone winning and getting the points they were due ( as detailed by the various combat models I listed above... which it seems you and Wreck seem to dismiss).

"You can score no less than zero. This is what everyone else will score against "the best" too,"

Pardon my French but that is BS. People who start off an INITIALLY BALANCED GAME will have a much better chance of beating the best than people who start off in a one down position since initial advantages in CM games ( all games and war) snowball if your opponent is good.

" Analogizing to military force proves nothing. "

Hmm, I would have thought it was crucial to a wargame. What would you prefer I analogise to? Water polo?

Honestly, whenever I want to argue for a change to CM:BB my starting point is with WW2 AARs, training manuals etc. Analogising to real world military history is THE gold standard. I can't believe someone who is good at CM could not be aware of that.

Still, like I said... I don't want to get a cheap victory cause the other guy got screwed by the scenario allocations. Mike and Wreck may well differ. That's fine. I don't respect that since I think it is a "gamer's win" rather than an honourable victory but so be it.

If you all decide to go for the 4 scenarios, 3 QBs system I won't participate. I don't need to win badly enough to be happy screwing over 7 other good people before the battles even begin.

If that's what you decide I would like to PBEM the winner though since I'd like to see how I'd do against him in a QB of some sort.

Wreck, this isn't personal. I just think the system you and Mike are suggesting is not fair to EVERYONE involved. I don't want cheap wins and therefore I won't play under it ( nothing could be worse for me than knowing I beat someone better than me cause they got screwed by the tourney system). Win or lose I want the best person to come out on top. Your system doesn't guarantee that and therefore it is, IMO, an offence to sportsmanship.

I know you don't see it that way but I'm just explaining why I won't play under it. It is nothing to do with me throwing a temper tantrum ( although some would love to paint it as such). I just like to be as sporting as possible and only want to win if I (underlined) have earned that win. It is as simple as that.