WiR Tournament

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Thu Nov 22, 2001 8:17 pm

Originally posted by Josan:
At this time 7 heroic generals accepted the challenge of the war: MagnusOlsson, Czerpak, CrazyHorse007,Varjager,Yogi Yohan,Loki and Josan.

I WANT YOU TO THE WIR TOURNAMENT (as Uncle Sam).

Still we must argue the tournament rules, scenario, etc... so your opinions (even dont play) are very welcome.

Lets the guns speak!!!

I'm not the one to create a scenario, but maybe there is some smart guy among us, who is capable to make a balanced scenario - any time of war. Can be hipotetical one and last e.g. 5-6 months.
Then he sets the objectives for both sides, we can add points for losses and off we go...
Just an idea.
czerpak

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Thu Nov 22, 2001 8:58 pm

Is Wir 3.101 balanced enough to provide a fair chance for hte Russian player? I doubt it. Perhaps it would be better to wait until Wir 3.102 or possum wir?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 8:57 am

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:

Really? (it cant happen)
...
I can quite easily imagine a situation where the german shoots his wad taking those 3 cities while the sovs are building up a big reserve. Along comes Mr mud. The sovs move up the reserves.
Mr blizzard arrives and over the next 8 blizzard turns those cities change hands in a no to friendly manner.

Its too late. Losing those cities in '41, with much of the resources and factories on the map for the Soviets, is usually fatal.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 9:01 am

I just dont think a complicated point system is the answer.
Keep it simple- People from the outset have to be aware of the requirments for defense-attack.
It has to be a black and white solution.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 10:36 pm

another one is revived <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 1:21 am

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
Is Wir 3.101 balanced enough to provide a fair chance for hte Russian player? I doubt it. Perhaps it would be better to wait until Wir 3.102 or possum wir?

I think the game it́s not balanced, but we can balance it assigning new VP and places. It́s easy to conquer Moscow before winter, but it́s no so easy to conserve it during winter.
That́s why I proposed a variety of possibilities. The German will win, but how much will win? And the Russian will lose, but until where? It́s the same to conquest Moscow than to conquest Moscow and Gorki? It́s the same to conquest Rostov (easy) than to conquest Stalingrad?
If we dońt introduce a gradation, the results will be: German 1, Soviet 0. German 1, Soviet 0. German 1, Soviet 0...
Another thing: The VP because loses must be “proportional loses”, not objective loses. The fight can be heavy or light.
The skill of a general: Cities conquered, loses suffered and loses inflicted. But I think that in this campaign, the cities are most important than loses. If the Russians have the Moscow and Leningrad factories, they will won the war finally, the losses during 1941 are not important; if the haveńt these factories, they will lose the war, even having the entire 41 army.
That́s why the Germans must conquest Moscow (and maintain it) without worrying about their loses; the Russians must defend it without worrying about loses too. (But I, as Russian, always maintain in reserve enough forces to conquest again Moscow during winter).

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 3:51 am

To All

Its been 2 or 3 days since i posted the Tournament offer and ONE player(1) had the reqired Cojones to put in his name. (hehe)
The window of opportunity has closed.
I declare the Tourney over.
Czerpak is the winner.

Most simply wish to argue about the game ballance so it seems my move was premature.
I'm starting work on a '42/'43 hypothetical scenerio that has TOTAL force ballance on a locked section of the map with 15-20 turns or so.
There will be NO point system, victory will be determined by holding cities only.
Thus it will be nice and simple(and short) and victory determined by player skill alone.
Give me a week or so.

Nick

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Sat Nov 24, 2001 10:37 pm

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
To All

Its been 2 or 3 days since i posted the Tournament offer and ONE player(1) had the reqired Cojones to put in his name. (hehe)
The window of opportunity has closed.
I declare the Tourney over.

Hey, why do you declare the tournament over? I think that some of us want to participate in it, we were waiting to clear the rules and the victory objectives.
I think: MagnusOlsson, Czerpak, CrazyHorse007,Varjager,Yogi Yohan,Loki and Josan. An me, too, of course.

[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Lorenzo from Spain ]</p>

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:56 am

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

Hey, why do you declare the tournament over? I think that some of us want to participate in it, we were waiting to clear the rules and the victory objectives.
I think: MagnusOlsson, Czerpak, CrazyHorse007,Varjager,Yogi Yohan,Loki and Josan. An me, too, of course.

[ November 24, 2001: Message edited by: Lorenzo from Spain ]

Lorenzo

If you had actually READ my post it said
------------------------
"to have a vote on what rules are accepted you must have sent an e-mail to me to be part of the concensus"
------------------------
But what i see is that you dont even read your own posts, you listed me AGAIN as a player.

What i SAW after my offer was absolutely NO change in what was going on,
My Tourney offer was taken as a stand on using a point system and the perpetual motion arguement decided to settle on that topic for a while. The tourney offer was a chance to join a voting group so all these problems could be decided.

What were you going to do? Wait untill everyone AGREED with your posts on this thread?
----------------------------------------------
The options i put forward were options only as the final rules are voted on by the tourney players and THE MODERATOR HAS NO SAY IN THEM.
The posts i made regarding a point system were not made as a moderator but as personal opinions.
-----------------------------------------------
So i withdrew the offer in disgust.

I may make it again in the near future when i've finnished the tourney scenerio i'm working on.

If i don't, well, i'm sure someone else out there is willing to put in the effort to moderate a tournament......(hehe)

Loki. aka Nick

PS. What i think actually happened was that everyone was sitting back waiting to see who joined the tourney. (Baaaaaa)
Only Czerpak has the self confidence to not give a damm what anyone else does.

I expected such great commanders to be leaders, not followers.

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:17 am

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
To All
I'm starting work on a '42/'43 hypothetical scenerio that has TOTAL force ballance on a locked section of the map with 15-20 turns or so.
There will be NO point system, victory will be determined by holding cities only.
Thus it will be nice and simple(and short) and victory determined by player skill alone.
Give me a week or so.
Nick

Very good Loki. I support this idea totally.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:52 am

good news Loki!
I've almost finished campaign'44 and you're doing 42/43! Soon we will have scenario pool! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:34 am

Jesus Loki.
Take a pill and relax mate.

I think we all know how long things take to get done around here and you yourself are contributing in a great way.

Lorenzo from Spain · Post by **Lorenzo from Spain** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 1:36 pm

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:

So i withdrew the offer in disgust.

Sorry, Loki, I apologize, dońt be angry. May be my English it ́s not so good as I wish, and sometimes perhaps I misunderstood something. (In international relations, I prefer speak Esperanto: clearer, easier and without grammatical or orthographical problems).
When you said the tournament is over, I understood that it finished, it isn ́t? (I remember “Game over&#8221 <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . And I´ve read that it́s necessary only send you an e-mail to vote the rules, but you didn ́t specified between which rules and victory conditions we must to vote. Not to join the tournament. I thought that was enough to say it in the forum, as another did.

So, please, propose the victory conditions, dates of end of game, the home rules, the way we must to play... and we ́ll can accept them. And if possible, in easy English.

Of course, when we write in another idiom, is easy to misunderstand. I.e.: when you said that the another players have not enough “cojones”, I think that you really don ́t want to insult us. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ November 25, 2001: Message edited by: Lorenzo from Spain ]</p>

Lokioftheaesir · Post by **Lokioftheaesir** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:28 pm

Muz

I just took 2 pills and they did'nt work!!!
(hehe)
Ps. jesus is another player, i'm just Loki.

Lorenzo
Sorry buddy. Just got a bit annoyed.
Never said a thing about your english. I understand you fine. Also the cojones bit was a goad and not an insult. I'm sure everyone here has the required testicles for the job (unless of course there is a female wargamer out there keeping quite for fear of something strange happening)...ahhhh ..if only i could find such a woman. I know one that loves Civ2 but she is taken.

Let me finnish the '43 tournament scenerio and i'll send it out for everyone to play with. Remember i said it was hypothetical. It will be set up for as much ballance as i can get and have nothing to do with historical positions. I'm about 1/2 finnished so it should be ready by 27th or 28th.

Loki

BvB · Post by **BvB** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:22 pm

I'd be interested in joining in on this if it isn't too late...
WiR is a long game, so playing to Apr 42 seems reasonable enough. But although more complicated, I think the best solution is to play a mirror game and compare losses & overall situation at the end.
If you want to assign points, you could get real complicated and give a point for each city on the map. Or add in total resources to those points, and losses, and... on and on! ^_^
Or play one of the smaller scenarios - again consider mirror games if people feel the russians don't have a chance in the present version of WiR.
(mirror = play game twice at the same time with sides reversed)
Then you get into the debate elsewhere on this board about 'house rules' and what should apply. Whomever is organizing this could dictate those. I think a compromise on the supply mule thing is To allow additional supply only from the army's next higher HQ, or maybe designate one HQ per side as a support command who's sole function is giving out supply and only that one HQ is allowed to travel around doling out extra supply. Hopefully this could satisfy both sides of that argument's extremes.
I'm glad to see there is still an active interest in this game. I've had all the versions since the original Apple II one that allowed you to dole out replacements to each division instead of setting the HQ level. Good luck on the battlefield... BvB

screamer · Post by **screamer** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:24 pm

dont forget to send it to me

mulders_j@hotmail.com

loveman · Post by **loveman** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 10:33 pm

mmhh,
can i join in .

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 5:55 pm

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
To All

I'm starting work on a '42/'43 hypothetical scenerio that has TOTAL force ballance on a locked section of the map with 15-20 turns or so.
There will be NO point system, victory will be determined by holding cities only.
Thus it will be nice and simple(and short) and victory determined by player skill alone.
Give me a week or so.

Nick

Nick,
I appreciate your effort to give us an easy way to play a contest, but I want to underline one very important thing : WiR, IMHO, is a CAMPAIGN game (STRATEGY). Which means for me, that playing with production, taking care of other fronts and allied bombing (for Germans), upgrading system ( I plan upgrades long ahead and never allow computer do this). At the end of the day playing short scenario will be just tactical skills contest ( also interesting and I will join for sure, although I already won one quick tournament - thanks Nick <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ).
I'd like to see others opinions,
regards
Maciej aka Czerpak

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 8:10 pm

one more idea about scoring system :
we pick up any campaign or scenario which is agreed by all. It may be not balanced at all ( that is best part of my idea).
Then we run comp vs comp game and write down date war is finished and which side won.
We play mirror games in the contests with following scoring :
lets say ( I havent check yet) we choose 1941 campaign and comp vs. comp war ends in may 1944 with german victory.
Now possible results :
1. German player wins before may 1944.
He gets 1 point for each month to may 1944.
( e.g. he wins in february 1944 - gets 3 points)
2. German player wins in may 1944 - this is a draw
3. German player wins after may 1944 - soviet player gets 1 point.
4. Soviet wins in may 1944 - gets 3 points
5. Soviet wins before may 1944 - gets 3 points for each month before that date
6. Soviet wins after may 1944 - gets 2 points.

Then we add points for two mirror games and we got a winner.
I think this is simple enough.
Maciej

BvB · Post by **BvB** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 5:34 am

I'd say czerpak is on to a good idea which would allow all aspects of the game. But it might take unreasonably long to complete a tourney going the full game length.
Since someone is going to take the time, trouble & effort to put together a game design for this tourney though, I'd say it's their tourney and they can/should dictate how it's run. So how 'bout we do their design for the initial tourney and then for the next level of play-offs use czerpak's idea with the '41 scenario in mirror games? Possibly also set a liberal time limit and if the game isn't complete by then, take some sort of score at that time. BvB