Order of Battle - Inaugural MP Tournament Chat Thread

[Erik2]

This concludes round-4 and leaves two brave warriors for the finale.

13obo vs a432

The final scenario is Arctic Fox.
You can download the scenario here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3sysgzberanje ... x.zip?dl=0

Good luck to you both.

[13obo]

Thank you, Erik and well done a432!

Two games have been hosted with password "a432" as usual. No special rules added. What will be the tie-breaking rules? I propose primary objectives captured as usual, and then secondary objective completed.

May the best arm general win!

[a432]

Again I would ask that we play on a different map.

If not I ask for different tie breaking rules.

The problem is with primary objectives. They are seemingly unreachable. 35 turns to reach the other side of the map in snow seems difficult. Add in some static defense and the units of another player to slow you down, that prospect seems even more distant.

I think is is very likely for both players to have the 3/6 primary objectives.

So then to comes to the secondary objective. Which is very simply to destroy the middle bunker before you opponent. Complete that objective and spend the rest of your time defensive, your only concern is a delaying action to make sure they never reach your base and you win.

This map also has a very unique attribute. The limiting factor is money. Most other maps the limiting factor is command points. In addition you generally want to find a balance between command points and money, not here.

[13obo]

What tie-breakers do you propose? I suggested the above exactly because of the sluggishness of the map- whoever manages to destroy the bunker is player who's won the central battle and who deserves the victory.

About changing the map- it's too late in my view for that man. This should've been proposed/discussed in the beginning. I agree that other maps could've been more fun, but let's leave that for next tournament.

[a432]

So the final battle of order of battle comes down to who can destroy a bunker first? This will be done in the first few turns with little strategy or effort, Very anti-climatic. Sorry but for a game that offers so much more depth and strategy this feels like a bad joke.

At the very least the secondary objective should be whoever controls the center point at the end of the match, not who destroyed the bunker first. That would be more in line to as you say " a player who's won the central battle and who deserves the victory." Simply blowing up a building is neither winning a central battle nor deserving of victory.

Since the beginning I have asked for changes to the map selection. I specifically have problems with every map we have played on except peninsula and I have voiced them on this very thread.

It is never too late as was pointed out last round. If we had consensus of the 4 remaining players we would not have had to go swimming. If you join in with me now, we and our men will not have to freeze to death.

[13obo]

Agree with you on tie-breaker- controller of middle at end can be second decider after primary objectives.

Erik, what are your thoughts on modding a new map? Perhaps Boot camp? Dubno fields would need some more modding/balancing as the 5k RP start is ridiculous and the fight turns into an outlasting one, so probably that's a "no" on it.

[a432]

Personally I find the fork to be a great map or dubno fields both of them are fine as is in my opinion. Think of the glorious battle we could have dubno fields. Yes it would be long, but fun and deserving of a final battle.

[13obo]

I've never played the fork and didn't prepare for it given it wasn't on the announced maps, so not feeling comfortable playing it. Also, Dubno fields is too big for my taste, as I prefer small and quick engagements, rather than massive clashes of 15-20 units on each side.

To make things clear on my side and avoid further delay- the only map that I would consider other than Arctic Fox is Boot Camp, so if you agree on it and Erik is willing to mod it, then I'd be ok to switch to it. Otherwise, it's game on.

[a432]

I must say that these choices you present are really the shiniest of two turds. Boot camp does look slightly better at this angle, plus it is warmer.

What say you erik?

[Erik2]

If you guys agree to play, say Bootcamp Battle, I don't mind.
It should not require any modding, so can go ahead and start playing.
Any ties could be resolved by comparing how many land command points each side have lost.

[13obo]

Two games hosted on Bootcamp. The ones on Arctic Fox are up two. Your pick, ar432.

Thanks both.

[13obo]

Well, that was quick at least. The two games on Boot Camp finished.

We both won as Allies, and lost as Japanese. I won my game on turn 15, and ar432 won on turn 19. Haven't counted number of CP lost, have you ar432?

Btw, I find this tie-breaker of "CP lost" to be an odd one given the battle is a two-sided attack. Firstly and most importantly, it encourages the player that is winning in one battle, but is losing in the other one, to quickly lose in the losing game to prevent further CP lost, secondly, it is difficult to count the CP lost (cannot do it reliably or in a provable manner from replays either), and thirdly, we used turn count for win for previous rounds. I personally favour tie-breaker to be turn when win was achieved (but obviously I'm biased as that would put me as the winner). Leaving it to Erik/Shards to decide.

2 replays and 1 defeat screen attached (I overwrote the win screen with the defeat one by accident, so don't have it available).

Round 5.7z

(377.17 KiB) Downloaded 110 times

[Erik2]

Well., it is not easy to find tie breakers when there is only one primary objective and no secondaries...
You guys should have considered this before you decided to switch scenarios

If you do not have the CPs lost available I guess the only tie breaker left is the turn victory was achieved.
Unless you have something else both players can agree on after the fact...

[13obo]

Let's see what ar432 thinks. The point is we need a verifiable way to count the cp lost and replays allow those to be counted from Japanese side only.

[a432]

I have reviewed the replays to determine cp lost.

When I was allied:

1 infantry lost turn 7
1 DD and one PT lost turn 17

Total: 3 land CP and 5 Naval CP

When I was Japanese:

1 Infantry lost turn 5
3 Infantry lost turn 8
1 art lost turn 10
1 art lost turn 11
1 Infantry lost turn 12
1 art lost turn 13
2 infantry lost turn 14
1 artillery lost turn 15
1 infantry lost turn 15

Total CP lost: 32

When 13obo was allied:

1 infantry lost turn 9
1 infantry lost turn 10

Total CP lost: 6

When 13obo was Japanese:

1 infantry turn 5
1 infantry turn 7
1 heavy infantry turn 9
2 infantry turn 12
1 heavy infantry turn 13
1 infantry turn 13
1 infantry turn 15
1 heavy infantry turn 16
1 artillery turn 16
1 infantry turn 17
2 infantry turn 18
1 infantry turn 19

total CP lost: 44


So by CP lost I have won with

35 land CP lost and 5 naval CP vs obo 50 land CP lost.


Like i said this map really isn't any better than arctic fox. But we could try that map to see if we get something more conclusive. I doubt it because we will both probably win one side but loose with the other and have the same problem. This was the first time I played boot camp and I hope to be the last. But we could rematch again on it and I'm confident I would beat with you with both sides. Last game the only reason japan failed was because supply. Apparently I learned that the map requires you to never loose more than 1, even if you recapture it doesn't matter you loose because of 7 efficiency fight for too long. I would love to fight on fork or dubno fields. Those would lead to a conclusive fight without question.


Lastly my name is a432, please stop putting an R in it

[13obo]

Apologies for getting your nick wrong and I concede. Pillars of Eternity II and a few other games coming out so I really can't be bothered with this anymore. This tournament has been a bit of a disappointment in many aspects (lack of clear rules, maps for round 2,4 and 5 were bad, etc.), and I can provide defailed feedback later if anyone wants it.

Congratulations on the win.

P.S. you only won because you played super defensively as both sides on a map that's clearly supposed to be a two-sided attack, not because of better tactics. I wouldn't be so sure you'd beat me as I've looked at your replays as well.

[a432]

Well thank you for the match and for the win. I agree with your thoughts on this tournament. Have fun with Pillars of Eternity II it looks very nice!

[kondi754]

Who finally won?
I see that this whole idea of MP tournament ended rather badly ...

[a432]

The last two posts before you show who won.
but
TLDR; I a432 have won the final battle based on the tie breaker CP lost. In addition 13obo decided to concede rather than continue for a more decisive conclusion.

[kondi754]

I can read (and I like to read ) but I'm waiting for the official announcement of results
The thing is, you both complain about the organization of this tournament.
It seems to me that unnecessary emotions appeared at the end, so the fault lies on the organizers side that they haven't set clear rules.
Are MP's maps really so unbalanced?