Will the Rumblings of War tournament (Row) be Returning

[dieseltaylor]

Fair point regarding the CMBN scoring system.

I am sure with the combined brain power of the Peng board, or in fact any single contributor to this thread, could come up with a practical alternative. : )

Hell I would lay just for the joy of true FoW and I do not care who wins!

[WineCape]

The latest CMBN Beta has changed the scoring in quick battles; points for causing enemy casualties are awarded in a linear fashion, rather than all-or-nothing scenario by achieving a certain threshold. Time will tell whether we should revert CMBN's end score achieved by the players to a 100-point scale, given total score points awarded by the scenario designer -- or not -- before applying Nabla scores in the tourney. If not, Nabla scoring certainly needs to adjusted, as mentioned.

I will also be investigating the possibility of an, in part, Chess-style "Swiss format tourney." In chess, the player pairings may be changed to equalize the number of times a player has been White and Black. This, in CM-terms, will entail the ideal situation where combatants do not play more then 2 consecutive matches as the "dark forces" (Black/Axis) or conversely, more then 2 consecutive matches as "light forces" (White/Allied), plus the even spread of RoW noobs vs RoW veterans. The latter already activated in previous ROW's.

This might, or might not, be a workable solution, given tourney match-up mechanics/schedules. All in good time gentlemen, all in good time. I don't foresee a ROW tourney immediately after CMBN's release. Not for a few months anyway. I need to get hold of Nabla, Treeburst155, Cpl Carrot, Holien, KingFish et al and the scenario designers(!) with 'some' requirements.

Not all their emails are active anymore.

[Nidan1]

You actually played ROW with your clothes on?

Only in the early stages, as the battles progressed sleeping, eating and dressing were cast aside.

[JonS]

St. Nazaire I was very fortunate to sink quite a lot of assault boats where the attacker has no options. So depending which side I was on in each battle I could get better chances of getting a good score : )

Doesn't that miss the point of NABLAs scheme though? As I recall, you weren't really competing against your opponent in each scen. Instead you were competing against all the other players who had the same side as you in that scen.

[WineCape]

Also remember about outlier/whackey scores, which seems to be forgotten by many a commentator:

"The formula created by Nabla for determining the Nabla score is .....highly customizeable. There are several parameters (values) that can be changed to produce the curve desired by the tournament operator. I played with these parameters for weeks, studying the resulting curves until I found out what values would limit outlier results to my satisfaction.

It is true that players playing a side of a scenario with a very high median cannot do much better than that median; but the steepest part of the [graphic] curve should surround the median. The curve I had in place was almost flat in the region where the top 5 or so scores for a side would fall. ... [Thus,] a score of 90 from a side of a scenario where 40 was the median would not score many more Nabla points than a score of 70 from the same side, [depending on the tourney directors adjustable curve selected.]

The Nabla scoring system was a work in progress. Nabla had even mentioned that he thought the curve might need to be different for every Row scenario.

--- Treeburst155 out.

I need to contact Nabla, Treeburst155, KingFish for their Nabla scoring input before we even can think of running a ROW VI. The essence of Rumblings of War is pinned on the Nabla scoring system. Without it, or lack of understanding how to implement in correctly as intended by Nabla, will make the ROW just 'another tourney', no disrespect to the endeavors of other organizers.

[JonS]

BTW, there's a shedload of AARs here:

http://www.gregories.net/row/files/

[WineCape]

Thanks Jon!

[GreenAsJade, in “South of Vevi”, Axis Attack vs Melnibone]. Hehe. Worth repeating....

"And then, there was “That Gun”. Here is the tale of “That Gun”.

The first armor to arrive were a couple of PSW222s and a couple of machine gun half

tracks. I decided to send one of the PSWs over to help secure hill 208, and the rest to

wind their way around and help the main attack.

Well … somewhere hidden over towards Hill 208 was A Gun. And, without much ado,

and certainly without revealing itself, it popped off the car destined for hill 208 pretty

much the instant that the car topped the first rise. First shot, I think. “Darn” I thought.

Not for the last time.

Then, the other PSW got itself established in a position to fire on the trench on Hill 207.

I think it got a few shots off at the trench before That Gun struck again. “Dang!

Can he see all the way over here with that darn thing?” I thought. I still didn’t have a good

position fix on it. Then the HTs finally wound around and were ready to move in and

support the trench warfare. Scurrying across a saddle the first one went. “Bang!” again!

“Oh Bother It”, I think I recall saying.

At least I could see the Gun now, on the flank of Hill 208. “Man, that is one good gun

operator!”, I’m thinking.

I managed to rush the last HT across the vulnerable saddle: maybe I suppressed The Gun

with MG fire, I can’t recall.

Then came the tanks. Four nice shiny tanks: those should be good for weeding out men

from trenches, and maybe even deal revenge on That Gun. Ho ho.

Carefully, carefully up the road cresting over the hill to shoot The Gun went the first

tank, while the others were sent to wind their way round to the main attack.

“Bang” “Oh Bother Again” – I swear it was the first shot again that took that tank out,

barely before he crested the hill!

Right! That Bloody Gun is really in for it. I patiently waited while the two “anti gun”

tanks crawled up through rocks to the crest of hills to take out that darn gun. Blam Blam

they went, miss miss they went, ricochet ping reverse panic man that Gun is scary!

Patiently I wait again while we climb back up and repeat. Meanwhile the last tank was

supposed to go boot men out of trenches.

Can you believe it? Right at the very moment he’s crossing the saddle where the HT died

before, right at the moment when two tanks are supposed to be suppressing the bejeezers

out of That Gun, what happens? Both tanks reverse back down their hills, the Gun

swings and “Bang” another dead tank!

I ask you, how much can a Koala bear?

Well, that used up most of the available time for tanks to do anything. As it turns out,

The Gun was then out of ammo, but I didn’t know that. I belatedly raced one tank out

towards the stalled main attack… those poor fellows staring balefully at the nice big flag

in the distance, but my gamey rush was not going to be rewarded: there were too many

rocks in the way.

And so a game that started feeling good proved that if it’s feeling good it’s only because

you don’t know what’s really going on…"

[von shrad]

Ah, this thread rekindled thoughts of the Not-So-Superbowl, one of, if not the first, tourneys in CM. It was a very basic round robin consisting of the worst of the worst CM players. Man, that was some great fun. If I recall correctly, stuka won the first such competition no doubt laying the foundation for all of his ill behavior on these here forums. I take full responsibility.

That was nearly 11 years ago and looking back at my posts I can barely recognize the young poster that was me. Oh, how things change.

BTW, CMN looks great and I look forward to my return to the system. It has been a long time comin'.

von shrad

[Dragotin]

I have internet now.

Make your time.

[Sivodsi]

Well of course that was the first thing I thought of - and discarded : )

I think all the problems inherent in applying it to a Nabla Tournament are self-evident.

I can see your point, but here the case is different. The bit that you quoted was one particular application of Rasch. We would be approaching it from the perspective of "skill in CMBN" as being the ability we are interested in. We are not comparing the German to the US side (although we certainly could if we wanted to).

When I did a Rasch course, I actually used the data from the last RoW tournament to see how it compared to the NABLA system. The results were similar, but there were also some notable differences. I'm happy to dig them out if anybody is interested. It should be pointed out, however, that the 'separate independent' groups format of RoW is not ideal for Rasch, which does better the more connected the data is.

So what would a Rasch CM tournament look like? The important thing is connectiveness: as long as the players are related to each other in a chain they can be compared on the same scale of ability.

The more links in the chain the better the ability measure, but below is what I consider to be a minimum workable format for 16 players (A-H and a-h) with two scenarios so that a player can be axis in one and allies in the other.

We can see above that every player is related to another player: for example, ‘D’ is related to ‘a’ because ‘a’ played A who played B who played ‘c’ who played ‘C’ who played ‘d’ who he did play.

Ideally there would be more scenarios so that more players could play each other, and you would get less error with better linking. You would get more connections by having four scenarios with each player playing each other twice, once as axis, once as allies. The good thing about this system is that it is robust in the case of players dropping out.

I would love to run a Rasch analysed tournament just to see how it goes.

But at the moment don't have much time to spare.

[WineCape]

Interesting Sivodsi,

As I understand the current critique against Nabla: in an wildly unbalanced scenario, the player playing the underdog's side (whether Axis or Allied) has an easier time scoring/racking up Nabla points? Is this assertion correct?

If the above is correct, then the player should be awarded Nabla points according to a graph of "diminishing Nabla points," the further AWAY the player scores from the median for that side's scenario, as already build into Nabla, but not necessarily used by KingFish in latest Row's due to not getting the complete math Formulae from Treeburst155??

For we cannot -- and should not -- negate/discount a player's "goodness/badness" too heavily or too lightly if he is moving far away from the median score for that scenario, despite the elements of luck/tough luck, not getting an specific side to play for a given scenario and/or AWOL players. And this is what Nabla takes into account, at least with scoring far above/below the median for that scenario. Afterall, at a minimum, the "far-off-the-median-scoring-player" is either damn good (technique) or damn useless (lack of technique), ceteris paribus.

The scenario of not discounting/negating a player's Nabla score in the outlier scoring cases too heavily, or too lightly, as decided by the tourney director given the Nabla graph to play with, is there, to be used by him, and to be selected by him what he feels comfortable with.

Even the more reason to get hold of Tree and Nabla before we start the VI incarnation: What values did they work with, and should we have a different Nabla scoring graph for each scenario or not.

Naaaaaaaablaaaaaa !

[TexasToast]

I'm really excited about getting a usable Mac version again, and would like to be included if possible! I finished in the top half of the Invitational and also played in ROW III (although I think some of my matches stalled due to opponent dropouts?). I'm not sure why I'm not on the list, unless I did something disqualifying that I don't remember?

If not the first one, hopefully something down the road. Looking forward to scrapping with the old crew and the new guys as well.

TT

[JonS]

Afterall, at a minimum, the "far-off-the-median-scoring-player" is either damn good (technique) or damn useless (lack of technique)

Logically, in the case of a single scenario, I don't think that's a valid deduction since there are other causes of outlier performance. most notably, I might get a far-off-the-median score because you totally suck at CM, and I manage to beat you like a red headed stepchild only because you are a red headed step child.

However, in the case of multiple scenarios (like, say ... a tournament) where the overall winner will be someone who consistently scores far-off-the-median, or usually far-off-the-median and otherwise over the median, then I think it is valid to deduce that they're just that damn good.

[Ranger33]

I would humbly submit my name for a possible spot in this tournament. I know my post count is quite low, but I'm a long time lurker. I remember following a couple of these tournaments and reading the AAR's. Alas, I was but a young lad then and too scared to play a single match against anyone for fear of getting utterly destroyed, much less trying to enter a tournament.

Perhaps some kind of "new guys" tournament should be organized, with the top players earning a slot? If we are needed at all, that is.

[Andrew Kulin]

Wet Triangle, if I am not mistaken, was also a very balanced scenario, with both Axis and Allies teams scoring close to the 50-point mark.

Forgive me if I happen to disagree with that sentiment.

http://www.gregories.net/row/files/wt_Andrew_Kulin.pdf

[Ted]

Would there be a delay of the start to let some of us who are not yet familiar with the CM2 engine to try and catch up?

[dan/california]

I in, I hope?

[gunnersman]

I played ROW once...

Once.

[WineCape]

Forgive me if I happen to disagree with that sentiment.

http://www.gregories.net/row/files/wt_Andrew_Kulin.pdf

I am corrected.

[WineCape]

Jon,

You left the 'ceteris paribus' part in my quote, you selective quoter! However, I do agree fully with your observation.

TexasToast,

all here that reply will get noted for RoW VI. Not the same as a guarantee, but I guarantee that the list published earlier will not all be interested/available to play ROW VI. All Row participants I am AWARE of will get an forum email invite. Make sure you have a working/listed email! From the replies, I will weed down the multiply ROW from the single ROWS.

Ted,

Even JonS, a beta tester, needs polishing of his Normandy play skills. Just because he's Design Lead for scenarios does not deduct, logically, that he is au fait with good play!

ROW VI will not start for at least a few months after release of the game.

[JonS]

Jon,

You left the 'ceteris paribus' part in my quote, you selective quoter!

Ha! Fair cop, but in my defence I plead ignorance - I have only the meanest idea what ceteris paribus, and didn't feel inclined to google it

[JonS]

Forgive me if I happen to disagree with that sentiment.

http://www.gregories.net/row/files/wt_Andrew_Kulin.pdf

Ha! Did you read my Wet Triangle AAR? My toys certainly went out of the cot over that one ...

It's a little odd, actually. St Edouards I remember, and I remember Push to Maleme and Moltke Bridge. I can barely remember Highlanders in Hell. But I have no recollection of Wet Triangle. None whatsoever.

[George MC]

Like the sound of this - let's roll

[WineCape]

Ha! Did you read my Wet Triangle AAR? My toys certainly went out of the cot over that one ... It's a little odd, actually. ...... I have no recollection of Wet Triangle. None whatsoever.

A lot of men don't.

... I have only the meanest idea what ceteris paribus, and didn't feel inclined to google it

A meanie word for "all else being equal," which they rarely are according to economist Samuelson.

[Sivodsi]

Tsk an average is no good. If half the Germans score 80% and half 20% that gives the average but ignores the extreme results.

The beauty of Rasch statistics is that it doesn't work by means, medians etc, it works by probability.

It has a function in which you can fix the scenarios' level, and let the 'ability' of the players float. In effect you are saying, given the difficulty of playing this side of the scenario, how good was this player?