“World Divided” a brand new tournament for Strategic Command WWII: War in Europe is about to begin.

[archmache]

Wondering out a resign option too. Currently in my '42 game my side as Axis the Soviets have fallen it is spring '43. The next 40 or so turns will just be monotonous as GE builds up to invade England to get the "Decisive Victory". I don't want to deny my opponent a victory by not doing any more turns but is resigning an option? There is no "x" button to the right in the tournament bracket like the online games one. Thanks

[Hubert Cater]

The lack of a resign option is purposeful, this is an intended limitation for the tournaments (for all games using the Matrix tournament server) as the games are mirrored and how you win and how you lose can impact scores. Games essentially need to be played to the end to have them properly scored.

[El_Condoro]

My opponent (Stormcrow) has conceded both of our games - what happens with the scoring now?
Challenge ID 348783 Turn 54 (9 Dec 43) and Turn 53 (28 Nov 43) if that helps.

[BillRunacre]

You should be able to see the current scores here:

https://www.slitherine.com/tournaments/scores/721

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

My opponent (Stormcrow) has conceded both of our games - what happens with the scoring now?
Challenge ID 348783 Turn 54 (9 Dec 43) and Turn 53 (28 Nov 43) if that helps.

Ideally your opponent would continue to play to the end, but if not, just make sure you have at least played out your turns, e.g. that you are the last player to have played both your games so you do not incur a time out penalty.

For scoring, the server, via an internal determination, will either award the BYE score for both games which would be 75 per game, or your current score.

Either way your current total is 150 points so it looks like it won't make a difference for you one way or the other as long as you submit your final turns so you don't get penalized, versus your opponent being the one that will be penalized.

[El_Condoro]

Thanks for that. I was looking forward to playing to the end but it's not fun to 'force' a player to continue a game that might go on for weeks of real time when they are not enjoying it.

What I am more curious about is whether I will be penalised in relation to the other players in the tournament, who do finish. If my score is going to stay at 150, which it is now, what is the incentive in a normal game to get a victory? It is only late 1943 and I was hoping that getting a victory would increase my score. I see the top player is on nearly 200 and I have no chance to attain anything like that if my opponent ends the game, which seems unfair.

[Duedman]

I unfortunately took London and Cairo which my opponent had cleared after he discovered there was no option to resign.
It would have been an Axis win, since I was in Leningrad, Stalingrad, deep Caucasus and Kubytshiev with Moscow on the verge. And 2 failed Allied invasions in Italy (US) and France (GB). But it would have taken me at least an ingame year more.
I think points are awarded not just for a win but how quick it was achieved. If thats the case, I got too many for my Axis game.

[El_Condoro]

My Axis had Leningrad and Stalingrad, and Moscow was on the verge of collapse. However, I was anticipating a strong Allied invasion in 1944 (or even earlier) that would have caused me some pain and forced me to redeploy units from the east. I thought this one was favoring me but was undecided.
My Allies had just retaken France but Italy was still in the war (NA was all Allies) and the Russians were about to launch an offensive (they held Stalingrad and Moscow). This one was just a matter of time.
If victory is also a function of turns taken, then that needs to be factored into the score of a game that is ended early, too.

I am really enjoying the tournament structure (I also play Valor and Victory and have Field of Glory, too) and expect these 'teething issues' will arise with a new tournament approach, so I am just raising questions rather than complaining.

[archmache]

Personally I think a resign should be added.

Since both players get to play each side, no side is deprived of playing Axis or Allies. A win or resignation should count as full points (for example 1000) however every turn that passes + NM factor + unit losses + other factors should then be deducted from the 1000. So for example if your opponent surrenders on turn 1, you get exactly 1000 points but if they surrender in May 1945 you only get 700 this would reward faster victory etc (i.e. every turn removes points from the victor and gives to the loser - a stalemate would result in 500 / 500)

Of course you could add in a "minimum turns required" so that they have to play at least 20 turns before deciding. Then you could subtract points for unit losses from the 1000 along with the turn deductible, then multiple the points by the NM factor (come up with some equation) then subtract/add points based on important points held for example Cairo or Stalingrad. This would incentive both fast wins, and efficient wins (low mpp loss) etc.

Making someone play out a losing game makes no sense because as already stated both sides get to play both sides so nobody is losing out on "fun"

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

Thanks for that. I was looking forward to playing to the end but it's not fun to 'force' a player to continue a game that might go on for weeks of real time when they are not enjoying it.

What I am more curious about is whether I will be penalised in relation to the other players in the tournament, who do finish. If my score is going to stay at 150, which it is now, what is the incentive in a normal game to get a victory? It is only late 1943 and I was hoping that getting a victory would increase my score. I see the top player is on nearly 200 and I have no chance to attain anything like that if my opponent ends the game, which seems unfair.

Thanks for the feedback and while I can understand it is not fun to force a player to continue a game that might go on, my guess is that the way the server tournaments were designed it is not typical for a player to lose significantly in both games of a mirrored match.

It really does come down to how you win and lose each game in the match, e.g. denying you let's say a DECISIVE victory lowers your winning score, while boosting their score on the losing end.

So yes, by him no longer playing he could in theory be denying you more points in victory, but he could also be denying himself more points in his loss as well.

That's at least the thinking as I understand it with how it is all ideally supposed to work and why there are multiple rounds as it is then all cumulative in the end.

Resigning is also then potentially problematic as what score should be assigned? And what score should be assigned that is then fair to everyone else in the tournament that plays their full matches and so on.

I don't know if there are any easy answers to this, thus why I can understand the hesitation to add a resign option to tournament mode on the server.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Duedman

I unfortunately took London and Cairo which my opponent had cleared after he discovered there was no option to resign.
It would have been an Axis win, since I was in Leningrad, Stalingrad, deep Caucasus and Kubytshiev with Moscow on the verge. And 2 failed Allied invasions in Italy (US) and France (GB). But it would have taken me at least an ingame year more.
I think points are awarded not just for a win but how quick it was achieved. If thats the case, I got too many for my Axis game.

To confirm, speed of victory is not a factor.

[El_Condoro]

Perhaps tournament campaigns need to be made that have a much more limited span of time. e.g 30, 40 and 50 turns. Victory is based on NM (only?) and the last turn number. Each turn less than 50 that the Victory conditions are met gains points. If the game is ended early, the remaining player gets the higher of the average of all winning scores or their current points at the end of the game. This is still far from perfect.

Modifying the existing campaigns to do this would be fairly easy as nothing really needs to change except to change the victory conditions and to use the turn countdown (that I assume was included for just this kind of thing) and turn limit. Of course, testing them will take the most time.

[Duedman]

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

Perhaps tournament campaigns need to be made that have a much more limited span of time. e.g 30, 40 and 50 turns. Victory is based on NM (only?) and the last turn number. Each turn less than 50 that the Victory conditions are met gains points. If the game is ended early, the remaining player gets the higher of the average of all winning scores or their current points at the end of the game. This is still far from perfect.

I am not sure if that would be a good idea (if I understood you correctly).
In my current game as Allies my opponent said that the game was worth it, if he manages to get Moscow. Which he just did.
Its just that Munich is already in my hands and I'm 1-2 turns away from getting Berlin.
If the game would be over now via turnlimit the final score would greatly distort reality wouldn't it?

[Taxman66]

Maybe in the future, or future game, a point system could be built into the game.

That way even 'decisive victories' could be scored differently with adjustments for how costly and how quickly such victories come.

It would also allow for granulated handicapping.

I think it would also provide additional incentive to complete games instead of just resigning when a position becomes lost (or, as is too often the case, when it becomes apparent that a player can't 'win').


I don't think this would be too hard to actually code in come to think of it.

One possible method:
At the end of each turn (both Axis/Allied) count victory hexes owned. Add to a running total.
If the game ends before the last turn, then all unplayed turns' summation of victory hexes go to the winner.
Multiply the victory hex count by a constant (e.g. 100?) for each side.
Divide the total MPP lost (Units + Convoy + Strat) by another constant (e.g. 50?) for each side.
Each side determines their final score by subtracting the adjusted MPP value from their adjusted victory hex value.
Type (i.e. Marginal - Decisive) of victory is then determined by difference between the winning score and loosing score.

*Note: One additional adjustment is probably required based on the historical/base line expected victory hex count for each side.

[Hubert Cater]

While currently speed is not taken into account as a factor, pretty much everything else is including adjustments for how costly or not victory has been for both you and your opponent.

Just posting the points system here again for reference as it might be a bit lost now as it goes back to the first page of this thread:

1) Victory Conditions - Map situation is in effect right from the get go, e.g. current victory conditions are weighed into the score, and of course victory conditions change from the start of the campaign to the finish.

CAMPAIGN SCORING (VICTORY CONDITIONS)
100 DECISIVE
80 MAJOR
70 MINOR
60 TACTICAL
50 STALEMATE

2) Kills Ratio - The strength point losses in MPPs you inflict on your opponent relative to the strength point losses in MPPs he inflicts upon you.

3) National Morale Ratio - National Morale of all your major nations on your side, including those that have surrendered (those that have surrendered will have 0 NM applied to the formula) relative to 100% will factor in to the score

4) MPP Growth - Current total MPPs relative to your at start home MPPs for all major nations on your side will factor into the score as well, e.g. if you are expanding and your opponent is contracting, you are doing better with this factor than he will be etc.

* * *

The major portion is the current victory conditions, e.g. item 1), while items 2) to 4) will push that score a bit higher or lower depending on how you are doing.

Scores are relative to 100 points, and if you are in a DECISIVE VICTORY position which equals 100 Victory points, then you can certainly push higher than 100 points if you are also doing very well in the other categories, or push a bit lower if you did not do so well and paid a heavy toll to get there. Doing well also generally means your score is pushed higher while your opponents score is pushed lower, and vice versa.

[Taxman66]

I'm suggesting for the base game, not just tournaments.

[El_Condoro]

I am not sure if that would be a good idea (if I understood you correctly).
In my current game as Allies my opponent said that the game was worth it, if he manages to get Moscow. Which he just did.
Its just that Munich is already in my hands and I'm 1-2 turns away from getting Berlin.
If the game would be over now via turnlimit the final score would greatly distort reality wouldn't it?

If the victory conditions were not changed, yes, but the victory conditions would be changed for a campaign with less turns so that, for example, the Allied player might achieve victory by taking Munich (in your example). All the campaigns assume the goal is to take Berlin (for the Allies) but that would not be necessary if the turns were reduced.

[El_Condoro]

If the victory conditions are important, then I still think the turns taken should be used (I have said this above in this thread, I know). There can be a large turn gap between Major and Decisive and holding out for a few extra turns can be a real achievement (1944) yet both players get the same victory points (for that part of the scoring) if they both achieve major/decisive victory.

[Duedman]

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro
If the victory conditions were not changed, yes, but the victory conditions would be changed for a campaign with less turns so that, for example, the Allied player might achieve victory by taking Munich (in your example). All the campaigns assume the goal is to take Berlin (for the Allies) but that would not be necessary if the turns were reduced.

I'm still not convinced. It is not only missing out on Berlin by 1 or 2 turns.
I was mentioning Munich because it is the alternate Capital. If I get Berlin too, Germany is out of the war and I get Moscow back for free.

And if we continue playing this IS going to happen very soon. The difference in score should be quite big I think.

[El_Condoro]

I haven't thought it through in depth but what I envisaged was something like this:
By Turn 40 in my Axis 1942 game, I had taken Leningrad and Stalingrad and was moving on Moscow. I held all of France and had not been invaded but was being beaten at the gates of Cairo.
So, perhaps the campaign could be shortened and the victory conditions for the Axis be Berlin, Paris, Rome and at least 2 of the Russia VHs for a basic victory by Turn 40.
Taking Cairo and the third Russia VH would be a major victory.
Not meeting the objectives by Turn 40 is an Allied victory.
The details of the victory levels would need to be sorted out.