Competition Rules (hypothetical)

[Squirmer]

I wonder what people think of the following set of rules for a hypothetical SPWaW PBEM competition?

Please bear in mind that enforceability is a key consideration.

General Outline

League Format
Home and Away matches (everyone plays each other twice)
Meeting Engagements (Generated Battles)
Fixed Set of Custom Maps

Global Rules and Game Settings

SPWAW 7.1 out of the box
20 Turns per game
Time Limit of 1 Month per game
Month, Year, Weather, Visibility - Variable
Units may be purchased from any Nation
True Troop Cost - On
Rarity - Variable
Fast Artillery - Off
Troop Quality - Variable
Arty Effectiveness against Infantry - Variable
Air Sections - Variable
Historic Ratings - Off
Unlimited Ammo - Off
All other Realism Settings - Variable
All remaining Settings - Default
No Renaming of Units
Reinforcements are Permitted

Maps

All games will be played on one of a set of 10-20 custom maps. These will cover all theatres of conflict and will be of all sizes from very small to very large.

Maps may have any type of victory hexes in them apart from hidden ones and "no-recapture" ones. Players may not edit the maps prior to game setup (is it possible to enforce this?).

Scoring

The built-in SPWaW victory levels are ignored. The winner is the player with more victory points at the end of the game. Scoring is based purely on the ratio of VPs between winner and loser:

Loser gets 0 points
Winner gets ((Winner VPs / Loser VPs) - 1) * 10

e.g. points ratio = 2.0 => winner gets 10 points
e.g. points ratio = 1.5 => winner gets 5 points

If ratio is less than 1.1 then the winner gets 0 points i.e. it's a draw

Troop Quality Variation

For the first game in the league all players have Troop Quality set to 100.

For each subsequent game all players have their Troop Quality set to 100 less their league score (to a minimum of 45 which is the lowest the game will allow).

The idea of this is to give the better players a bit of a handicap and provide hope to those who lose. There are doubtless better formulae that could be used to achieve a similar effect, this was just the simplest I could think of.

There is also a bit of a nice side-effect to this. Minor countries can be used without the usual quality penalty. Of course they may still have useless weapons but there you go.

Home Advantage

The Home player gets to setup the game and go first. They also get to choose the following:

Map
Year & Month
Weather
Visibility
Purchase Points (care should be paid to size of map and also to not bumping up against the 400 units limitation which can cause problems)
Rarity
Arty Effectiveness against Infantry (must be within range of 50-100%)
Air Sections (must be the same for both sides though)
All Realism Settings except for Historic Ratings and Unlimited Ammo which must always be Off

The idea is that when you are playing at home you get to play the type of game that you like (and are good at). If you like small scale infantry combat in the jungle with C&C On and ineffective artillery then that's what your "visitors" have to play. Of course when it comes to the return match you may find yourself in a huge armour slugfest on the steppes with C&C Off and 75 batteries of Nebelwerfers raining down on you. It works both ways.

House Rules

Players may of course make agreements between themselves on further restrictions e.g. only using one nation each, arty limits, no infiltrators/air drops etc. However, the breaking of any such agreement does not render the game invalid.

Time Limits and Defaults

If a game is not completed within a month then one player will be considered to have defaulted. Details of how to decide which player has defaulted will be worked out depending on practicalities of the league.

Upon default the declared winner will receive 5 league points.

OOB Errors when Loading Turns

Ideally players should endeavour to work these out between themselves, there may well be an innocent mistake. Turns may need re-playing with correct OOBs etc. However if this is not possible then at the request of either player the game will be voided and re-started with default OOBs.

Duration

Given the one month time limit for a game there is a simple relation between the number of players and the duration of such a league.

Duration = (Players - 1) * 2

e.g.

4 players = 6 months
6 players = 10 months
8 players = 14 months
10 players = 18 months
16 players = 30 months

It gets long-winded very quickly as you add players. What I suppose you could do is have up to 4 groups of 4 (taking 6 months) followed by a "finals" group of the 4 winners or whatever(another 6 months) making 12 months in total.

[Supervisor]

We had a PBEM "World Cup" that most seemd to have fun with. Here is the thread if you want to see what players liked or disliked. PBEM World Cup

[rbrunsman]

Anyone that wants to start a 2003 tourney is welcome to do so though! I'll join whatever is arranged.

[hellcat]

me too! I'd be up for it... I remember sometime ago now on the General's Guild (I think) There was a good ladder system there and they also had big multi-player campaigns with about 20 players per side... I'm all for this kind of thing if it can be coordinated... it would greater meaning to all our pbeming! :rolleyes: :p

[Squirmer]

I wasn't really proposing to start something. More a case of thinking out loud as to whether a structure for a league (as opposed to a ladder) could be devised which was practical.

So no comments? I am especially interested in what people think about the Home Advantage and Troop Quality Variation ideas. I think I have come up with a better formula for the latter which is:

Player Troop Quality = Base Value + (Losses - Wins) * 5

e.g. (assuming a Base Value of 70):

"Good" Player A has 3 wins and 1 loss => Troop Quality = 70 + (1 - 3) * 5 = 60

"Bad" Player B has 1 win and 3 losses => Troop Quality = 70 + (3 - 1) * 5 = 80

[rbrunsman]

It's too complicated for me to figure out. But, I will say that there are huge effects caused by changing Troop Quality. That drastic of a change could really make it tough on someone. Most players are pretty good and fate plays alot into who wins a battle between 2 good players. So one guy with 3 losses doesn't necessarily need the huge advantage given by a 20 pt difference in Troop Quality. I would think maybe if I've won 5x or 10x more games than my next opponent you could start to make assumptions about PBEM skills, but not just a few win/loss differences.

You sound like a born Tournament leader to me. I nominate you to run one.

[hellcat]

i second that nomination! :p go Squirmer go!

I also agree with the watchword 'keep it simple' if the first one goes ok we can make adjustments for the second tourney (thinking ahead already!)

Let's thrash out some details...

[Squirmer]

OK maybe the Troop Quality Variation part could be dropped. I still think that historic ratings should not be used though, makes it far more interesting. Just have 70 vs 70.

What about the Home Advantage part though? I thought this would be the contentious one ...

[hellcat]

i really think that keeping it as simple as possible would be best! That way it's a level playing field and allows for players to get wily as possible working with what they've got...

[DoubleDeuce]

Originally posted by hellcat
on the General's Guild (I think) There they also had big multi-player campaigns with about 20 players per side... I'm all for this kind of thing if it can be coordinated... it would greater meaning to all our pbeming! :rolleyes: :p

I am running a multi-player campaign right now. You can see more info on my website Combat-Campaigns and see if this is what you mean. Not many people start these up as they are very time consuming and a lot of work.

Squirmer, if you are looking to run something like that let me know. I have learned a lot through trial and error (not to mention the guidance from the regulars here on this board) and would be happy to pass on any helpful tips.

My campaign is full right now so I anyone else who has a desire to do something like this feel free to jump in and set something up. There certainly is interest for it.

[gnoccop]

Originally posted by Double Deuce
I am running a multi-player campaign right now. You can see more info on my website Combat-Campaigns and see if this is what you mean. Not many people start these up as they are very time consuming and a lot of work.

Squirmer, if you are looking to run something like that let me know. I have learned a lot through trial and error (not to mention the guidance from the regulars here on this board) and would be happy to pass on any helpful tips.

My campaign is full right now so I anyone else who has a desire to do something like this feel free to jump in and set something up. There certainly is interest for it.

I'm one of the player in Double Deuce multuplayer campaign and can say only one word: FANTASTIC!!!
We can play SPWAW at Operational and tactic level!