WWI Tournament

[Daniloff]

Hello All

Game against Happycat under way. First turns sent yesterday to Kommandant, Daniloff and John Moore. No turns as of yet but have received an ack from John. Assume there was a typo in Daniloff's email address, if you didn't receive my turn Brent, can you let me know.

Yours in the mud and blood.

Pacestick

Lukas' info is correct, the only typo was mine when I set up the account

Just sent mine out this mornin.

[Sapare]

Hi Lukas, we are playing in the same group and are going to play 1918 Kaiserschlacht. I was wondering if you want to do that over network instead of by mail as it would speed things up a bit. I am available for play Sunday, gmt+1.

Regards Philip

Did you get my PM or not?(I have not gotten a PM back yet and did not see any other reply or anything on this topic(though I only skimmed it I admit))

(And for all others, I would much rather do a network game each weekend instead of this whole email thing.. that is just going to turn into a huge mess and is not really practical.(nor needed if you have network games) Even with time differences it should be possible to find time on a weekend)

In fact, anyone who has to play against me (Lukas Stoll) can send me an PM and we can arrange a time to play(even right now I would have time)

[Glabro]

It occurs to me that yes, we need a new scoring system. The tournament scenarios are not balanced so that both sides have an equal opportunity for the victory levels.

For example, in Kaiserslacht, the question is between a German tactical or major victory, and you have to fight hard to get only a tactical loss as the Entente.

Basically, this means you will never get points as the Entente in that scenario, but you're assured of at least 3 points as a German.

Mind you, this is between reasonably competent players, which I think is the assumption from everyone here.

Ivanov pointed out that Race has similar problems for the Germans, but I don't know anything about Gallipoli.

If everyone played the same scenarios and the same sides, there wouldn't be a problem, but now that we've stuck with some players playing some scenarios twice, there is a problem.

[Ivanov]

It occurs to me that yes, we need a new scoring system. The tournament scenarios are not balanced so that both sides have an equal opportunity for the victory levels.

For example, in Kaiserslacht, the question is between a German tactical or major victory, and you have to fight hard to get only a tactical loss as the Entente.

Basically, this means you will never get points as the Entente in that scenario, but you're assured of at least 3 points as a German.

Mind you, this is between reasonably competent players, which I think is the assumption from everyone here.

Ivanov pointed out that Race has similar problems for the Germans, but I don't know anything about Gallipoli.

If everyone played the same scenarios and the same sides, there wouldn't be a problem, but now that we've stuck with some players playing some scenarios twice, there is a problem.

I'v never liked the current system and I have sent a proposal with a new scoring system to Kommandant and he is supposed to send it to everyone and we will vote it. Basically the idea is that a mirror match will have only one result, because as you mentioned due to the lack of balance there is no point in counting defeats when you play weaker side. If you play a mirror, and both players win when they play the stronger side ( e.g Entente in Race to the Sea or Germans in Keiserschlacht ), then the winner of the whole match is the one who scored a higher victory or achieved it faster.

Anyway this is not my original idea but that's how the mirror match is suppoesed to work. That's why you play a mirror - it guarantees that both players have exactly, perfectly equal chances. The current scoring system would maybe work for some sport competition, where you have an equal number of players in both teams, one filed and one ball, but no for complex scenarios, where there are too many factors involved and it's impossible to provide both sides with equal chances.

I've never completed Gallipoli but I have an impression that if Turks play it resonably well, then the Entente has no chances to win due to the supply.

[Pacestick]

Gallipoli is the only scenario of the three chosen that is close to being evenly balanced. The Entente have problems with supply but the Turks have problems with the number of troops available to defend with and never enough mpps to replenish their losses.

A quick fix would be to restructure the tourny so that the first round is a knockout playing mirrored matches of Gallipoli.

The tourny director could assign opponents within each division against each other by random draw. This way there would be no need to tinker with an already tinkered with scoring system to try and overcome the balance problems of Race to the Sea and Kaiserschlacht.

[Glabro]

I'v never liked the current system and I have sent a proposal with a new scoring system to Kommandant and he is supposed to send it to everyone and we will vote it. Basically the idea is that a mirror match will have only one result, because as you mentioned due to the lack of balance there is no point in counting defeats when you play weaker side. If you play a mirror, and both players win when they play the stronger side ( e.g Entente in Race to the Sea or Germans in Keiserschlacht ), then the winner of the whole match is the one who scored a higher victory or achieved it faster.

Wait...what's the point in playing a mirror match if you surrendered in your first game then? Because that's what I did in Kaiserslacht when I had a second turn disaster. I don't think "faster" should matter, faster is not always better. I t might just mean you took more risks. I say if both get a Major Victory, it's a tie in points.

And we do have points, right? That's why we have leagues. Otherwise we would have just done a cup system, and sort out the odd man when we came to that.

Again, the only reason we need to even consider this is because we have 3 scenarios instead of 2. With two there would've been equal opportunity for everyone.

[Ivanov]

Wait...what's the point in playing a mirror match if you surrendered in your first game then? Because that's what I did in Kaiserslacht when I had a second turn disaster. I don't think "faster" should matter, faster is not always better. I t might just mean you took more risks. I say if both get a Major Victory, it's a tie in points.

And we do have points, right? That's why we have leagues. Otherwise we would have just done a cup system, and sort out the odd man when we came to that.

Again, the only reason we need to even consider this is because we have 3 scenarios instead of 2. With two there would've been equal opportunity for everyone.

If someone surrenderes, then it should be like a major vicory for the opponent and if the the surrendering player achieves also a major victory playing the stronger side, then the player who didn't give up should be a victor of the whole match and get one point in the league and the defeated player zero points. This system should motivate people to play until the end instead of surrendering.

I think speed should be one of the criteria, because achieving victory quickly was always important for the generals. We could also look, who achieved the victory and took smaller casualties in the process ( a criteria even more important during the war ).

[Ivanov]

Let me outline the advantages of my system:

1. It's fair and gives equal chances to both players of the mirror match.

2. It encourages competitiveness and sportmanship by putting pressure on the players and making surrender a certain way to lose the whole match.

3. It recreates the real life conditions and historical atmosphere when the commanders were pressured to achiveve the victory quickly and with the samllest possible number of casualties.

If someone has a different idea, please send it to Kommandant and we will vote, which system suits you best.

[Glabro]

Tell me Ivanov, why would you even play the mirror game if you automatically lose and get zero points even if you get a major victory as well. I don't think fighting to the end is expected here when it was said in the rules that it's perfectly acceptable to surrender when there is no hope.

This changes the system so dramatically mid-tournament that it simply isn't acceptable. Let me go on record that I will not continue games in the tournament if this change is instituted, I've invested too much time on pointless games if that were to happen (and yes, while playing in itself is often the reward, not when you're made to play eight games at the same time).

Here's my suggestion for a new scoring system: Out of the mirror matches, each player only takes his best score. This gives a more equal opportunity to grab points regardless of the played scenarios, and means there's usually something to play for at least for one side (and really that's all that's needed often) in both games. The scoring is the same as previously: 4 for a major victory, 2 for a draw etc.

[Ivanov]

Tell me Ivanov, why would you even play the mirror game if you automatically lose and get zero points even if you get a major victory as well. I don't think fighting to the end is expected here when it was said in the rules that it's perfectly acceptable to surrender when there is no hope.

This changes the system so dramatically mid-tournament that it simply isn't acceptable. Let me go on record that I will not continue games in the tournament if this change is instituted, I've invested too much time on pointless games if that were to happen (and yes, while playing in itself is often the reward, not when you're made to play eight games at the same time).

Here's my suggestion for a new scoring system: Out of the mirror matches, each player only takes his best score. This gives a more equal opportunity to grab points regardless of the played scenarios, and means there's usually something to play for at least for one side (and really that's all that's needed often) in both games. The scoring is the same as previously: 4 for a major victory, 2 for a draw etc.

The whole point of playing a mirror is to give equal chances to both players and avoid complains about the lack of balace in the scenarios.

We have started 3 days ago without even discussing the scoring system, so everything can be still fixed. Please make an effort, elaborate more your system and send it to Kommandant who will then forward our proposals to the participants, as not everyone taking part is this competition has an forum account.

[Kommandant]

People, i sent an email for everyone to vote, please vote so i can set the most voted system to work

[Amadeus]

Let me outline the advantages of my system:

1. It's fair and gives equal chances to both players of the mirror match.

2. It encourages competitiveness and sportmanship by putting pressure on the players and making surrender a certain way to lose the whole match.

3. It recreates the real life conditions and historical atmosphere when the commanders were pressured to achiveve the victory quickly and with the samllest possible number of casualties.

If someone has a different idea, please send it to Kommandant and we will vote, which system suits you best.

I don't think that changing the rules after matches have started is really fair. Maybe for the next round. I vote for "Let the rules as they are" at least for the First round.

[Glabro]

I just realized the scoring works out better than I thought. We don't need the system of "only take the best result" at all, fortunately, because the voting email went without it.

Let me explain. Each scenario has a bias towards a certain result if played between two competent players. Let's say that in Kaiserslacht, this would be a tactical victory for the Germans (for the sake of example). This gives 3 points for the germans and 1 for the entente. As a mirror match, this means both players are expected to get 4 points.

Now, let's say Gallipoli is balanced towards a draw. Again, the expectation is 4 points from a mirror game, and if Race was biased for an Entente major victory, then again 4 points for both players.

This is great, and means the system works as written, no need to change it. Player skill differences as well as luck (mostly with weather) will influence the results so that there will be variations, depending on how strongly biased the scenario is.

[Ivanov]

I don't think that changing the rules after matches have started is really fair. Maybe for the next round. I vote for "Let the rules as they are" at least for the First round.

I just realized the scoring works out better than I thought. We don't need the system of "only take the best result" at all, fortunately, because the voting email went without it.

Let me explain. Each scenario has a bias towards a certain result if played between two competent players. Let's say that in Kaiserslacht, this would be a tactical victory for the Germans (for the sake of example). This gives 3 points for the germans and 1 for the entente. As a mirror match, this means both players are expected to get 4 points.

Now, let's say Gallipoli is balanced towards a draw. Again, the expectation is 4 points from a mirror game, and if Race was biased for an Entente major victory, then again 4 points for both players.

This is great, and means the system works as written, no need to change it. Player skill differences as well as luck (mostly with weather) will influence the results so that there will be variations, depending on how strongly biased the scenario is.

Well, let's see what the majority will say. If the Kommandant's/Glabro's system get's through I have no problem with that.

As for changing the rules after the start of the competition - we have started 3 days ago so I don't think that any match is over yet. The maximum I got is the 7th turn against Ludi and no change of rules would do any harm to the game.

By the way - Amadeus - do you play mirrors in Panzerliga? How do they work? You are probably one of of the most senior and experienced players here so you could shed some light on us.

[Glabro]

Indeed, we'll see.

By the way, how does timing the scenarios emphasize minimal casualties? Isn't that the exact opposite?

I wouldn't really have a big problem with comparing kill ratios as a tiebreaker, but it's a bit too late for that (well if it was even suggested) since I already used plenty of suicide tactics to speed up my attacks...

[Ivanov]

Indeed, we'll see.

By the way, how does timing the scenarios emphasize minimal casualties? Isn't that the exact opposite?

I wouldn't really have a big problem with comparing kill ratios as a tiebreaker, but it's a bit too late for that (well if it was even suggested) since I already used plenty of suicide tactics to speed up my attacks...

Well, we could decide what criteria should be more important in case of a draw in a match. I sincerely would go for casualties but I though that would be too controversial and proposed speed of victory instead. Lt.Col. Stephen "Godfather" Ferrando from Generation Kill used to say, that there are only three things important in war: tempo, tempo and tempo.

[Bill101]

I just realized the scoring works out better than I thought. We don't need the system of "only take the best result" at all, fortunately, because the voting email went without it.

Let me explain. Each scenario has a bias towards a certain result if played between two competent players. Let's say that in Kaiserslacht, this would be a tactical victory for the Germans (for the sake of example). This gives 3 points for the germans and 1 for the entente. As a mirror match, this means both players are expected to get 4 points.

Now, let's say Gallipoli is balanced towards a draw. Again, the expectation is 4 points from a mirror game, and if Race was biased for an Entente major victory, then again 4 points for both players.

This is great, and means the system works as written, no need to change it. Player skill differences as well as luck (mostly with weather) will influence the results so that there will be variations, depending on how strongly biased the scenario is.

This was my understanding of it too, and I'd be surprised if everyone in each league gets exactly the same results in every game.

But if there really is a tie then there are ways of differentiating, such as the time taken to achieve the victory, and/or the casualties suffered by both sides.

[Glabro]

Well if we go with my and Kommandant's system, tiebreakers are only needed when people end up with the same total points. In that case I suppose we need to look first at number of major wins (or 4 point wins in case of Race), then total wins, if all that is equal we can just toss a coin settle it in another quick way.

Of course any players that end up being dropped this way will be able to come back in case someone drops out later on.

[Peter Palchinsky]

Kommandant, et al.,

I vote for the Kommandant/Glabro system because it allows players the chance to earn points instead of having a bunch of players with zeros, which could happen under the other system.

However, the casualty ratio must be used for ranking everyone within each score grouping (e.g. all the people who scored 10 points should be put in rank order, and so on). After scoring each player within their league rank each grouping (e.g. all the 10's) according to the number of casualties they inflicted on the opposing players (in all games combined) divided by the total casualties they received (in all games combined). This will normalize the data into a ratio, which you can rank from least to most (in other words, worst to best). The casualty ratio will always be different and is most useful here. I'm not sure who qualifies to go to Round 2 (maybe the top 3 from each league?), but I think you will have to rank everyone within each league to be fair. Then you'd start over fresh with the next round.

Also, I wouldn't have a separate scoring system for each scenario (e.g. Race to Sea) because it opens up to much room for ambiguity and unfairness. I understand it's too late for Round 1, but either the scenario is good for league purposes (the casualty ratio will have the final decision), or it shouldn't be played.

Lastly, there have been non-responsive players in some of the leagues, so I suggest sometime this week you ask us to submit names. You have to think how that might affect the leagues. I think it's fine as long as each league has its own rankings, but I don't have the whole picture of how bad it really is.

PP

[Ivanov]

Kommandant, et al.,

I'm not sure who qualifies to go to Round 2 (maybe the top 3 from each league?), but I think you will have to rank everyone within each league to be fair. Then you'd start over fresh with the next round.

Peter - only one player qualifies to the second phase, so my system was based on the concept that would allow to establish a clear winner of each league, that is a player who wins more matches than the rest of the players. In Kommandans's/Glabro's system if you have players who are simmilarly skilled, then they would always get the same score playing any scenario against each other. My system allows picking a winner of each match immediatelly after it's finished.

[Glabro]

Ivanov, this is not a problem, since once scenario does not matter where there's four matches / eight mirrors to be played with a potential (though only theoretical) 32 points to be had and 16 to be expected. People will assuredly vary from that 16 points.

Now, in the cup phase, where we only have 16 players....wait, you said 1 from each league, why not 2 to have 16 in the cup phase? Best 2 of 5 gives more people some chances to at least try the bigger scenarios, and at least I didn't sign up to play these small scenarios 8 times that are imbalanced, only to end up not getting to play the game that I'm actually good at (well reasonably at least, since I'm undefeated out of 8-10 games, though that just means I've not encountered the right opponents, and the main thing for me in this tournament was to get to play those skilled players! And no, the scenarios don't count.).

Anyway, I digress, in the cup phase, we can use casualties, yes. But it's not needed in the league phase and besides we can't implement in now that the games are underway, I've at least sacrificed a dozen str 1-3 units just to lower entrenchment or inflict 1 hit before dying in the counterattack.

[Ivanov]

Ivanov, this is not a problem, since once scenario does not matter where there's four matches / eight mirrors to be played with a potential (though only theoretical) 32 points to be had and 16 to be expected. People will assuredly vary from that 16 points.

Now, in the cup phase, where we only have 16 players....wait, you said 1 from each league, why not 2 to have 16 in the cup phase? Best 2 of 5 gives more people some chances to at least try the bigger scenarios, and at least I didn't sign up to play these small scenarios 8 times that are imbalanced, only to end up not getting to play the game that I'm actually good at (well reasonably at least, since I'm undefeated out of 8-10 games, though that just means I've not encountered the right opponents, and the main thing for me in this tournament was to get to play those skilled players! And no, the scenarios don't count.).

Anyway, I digress, in the cup phase, we can use casualties, yes. But it's not needed in the league phase and besides we can't implement in now that the games are underway, I've at least sacrificed a dozen str 1-3 units just to lower entrenchment or inflict 1 hit before dying in the counterattack.

I agree that it would be better to allow 2 players from each league to get through but Kommandant clearly said that only one passes to the next round, so we have another issue. Also, if you manage to get out from the league you will be playing small scenarios too. The big campaigns are reserved for the final and semifinal...

[Peter Palchinsky]

Why not use this time as a trial period since so much is being debated? After this round is over then go ahead and rank everyone in their leagues. Then rearrange everyone by thirds into 3 new leagues: beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Then the 3 leagues each play one of the campaign games by mirror by pairing up players by rank. They continue playing until eliminated by double elimination. Then there will be 3 winners representing each league who play using double elimination to get a grand winner. This might be more fun for the majority of players since they would get to play at least 2 campaign games.

[Glabro]

Honestly, I at least don't want another league with this one being a trial.

I'd rather just draw more players from the leagues into the cup and do another round of Fate of Nations (I assume that was to be used for the quarterfinals, Call to Arms / Triple Alliance for the semis and the final).

[Peter Palchinsky]

Trial isn't the right word; I should've said qualifying round, which is used to arrange players by skill level. Regardless, I agree more players should be eligible to go to the next round.