Slitherine

[/quote]
But anyway the best of luck for the final round to everyone!!!
[/quote]

Ooh... best of luck everyone? Well, sorta. How about best of luck everyone except my opponent? Sorry Shards.

Where we're going, we don't need Luck....

Actually, it looks like I do...

Never mind the luck, just enjoy it everyone! Ooo... err.. I mean... War is hell

Hi,

I've played only 3/4 tournaments but I am enjoyed them a lot! Such a good idea! This time I am lucky and my opponents are doing movements every day at least 2times, so is much more fun! Thank you!

By the way, I am wondering if we can see opponents battles recordings, at least the final rounds or the ones of the players that won the tournament, I enjoy to learn from them and see what ideas they took to won the battle.

Thank you!

Netballman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:29 am I don't have a big problem with the "flashing notification" glitch... Iirc, if you deploy, undeploy, redeploy, undeploy.... you can cause loads of false flashes. After all, it's seldom you would be COMPLETELY blind as to an enemy's broad disposition. I always took it as just part of the fog of war and possible misinformation...!

It looks like we're going to have some interesting games

weizhinaihe wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 9:27 am It looks like we're going to have some interesting games

Hey guys, I'm matched up against Tapirman and he hasn't done his 2 initial turns.
Any way to reach out to him to ask him to go? TIA

Thank you to Shards for another great tournament!

My final match was very interesting. rth led with an all bomber and all destroyer force that he employed to great effect to blitz my ground forces and seize key victory points. It left me using a more attrition-based approach where I was killing lots of ships and airplanes, which kept me in the scoring. It was an interesting race between these two ways to accumulate points - could I kill units faster than he could accumulate points from holding victory positions? It led to very close matches. In the end we each won one of the matches (we each ended up winning the match where we were the USA side).

Thanks to rth for showing me a new strategy for Crecent Bay! (And nice more with your paratroopers seizing the islands when I tried to get cute and redeploy those forces...)

Congrats to weizhinaihe will be due soon I think. A very good final round from the Admiral to put pressure on but I don't think anyone is catching them now!

Yep indeed many thanks to Shards, and to all my opponents for some excellent games. Had a good tussle with Weizhinaihe but he's going in with a deserved win. Roll on the next one!

Thanks to Shards for organizing it and to all my opponents for the interesting games and especially for finishing their turns in time.

brokegnarf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:23 pm Thanks to Shards for organizing it and to all my opponents for the interesting games and especially for finishing their turns in time.

This is always a blessing!

JHeim wrote:

rth led with an all bomber and all destroyer force that he employed to great effect to blitz my ground forces and seize key victory points. It left me using a more attrition-based approach where I was killing lots of ships and airplanes, which kept me in the scoring. It was an interesting race between these two ways to accumulate points - could I kill units faster than he could accumulate points from holding victory positions?

rth has spanked me a couple of times. I elected to go with the conservative route this time and it paid off. I can't imagine that if you were annihilating that many of rth's units to stay in the game, that he'd have had enough RPs to maintain the effort. Good job, looks like both of you played a good match.

Of universal interest, I discovered that the best way to take out a battleship is to use your own battleship's main guns. Devastating results against the enemy.

Shards,
Thanks for organizing another great tournament. I needed the extra days. Good job, thanks again!

conboy

Many thanks to Shards for organizing. Bungling of Wake Island followed by more bungling in Crescent Bay = 'Twas Not Meant To Be but I think I learned a few things about each scenario. Looking forward to the next one!

Another great tournament Shards! Now if would could just keep out the players who don't play. It does not make any sense to me why you would sign up for a tournament and then not play.

Congratulations Weizhinaihe! It is hard to take the top spot when you only get to play 2 out of 3 matches. I will get you next time!

Shards wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 5:37 pm

brokegnarf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:23 pm Thanks to Shards for organizing it and to all my opponents for the interesting games and especially for finishing their turns in time.

This is always a blessing!

I just noticed this tester recruitment programme(https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111318) and was wondering if it's too late to apply? Based on the results of this tournament, I feel like I should be at a higher level as a beta tester than I am as a player

Doing some experimenting with Data from this Tournament. The below is what the final tournament table would have looked like if:

- First Sort was on Wins
- Then Draws
- Then Points Scored

So much more like a sporting tournament league table where it's very much about having more points than your opponent rather than just scoring as many points as possible. You'd have to be very clear to users which sort of tournament they were playing in, but wondered what people thought of the idea

This was my first online tournament. I thoroughly enjoyed it! Thank you to all who put this together. And my worthy opponents in the games. I will definitely participate in the future. My background is in tabletop and miniatures wargaming since i was a kid, and I am a member of HMGS (Historical Miniatures Gaming Society for 30 or so years, among others. I loved the breadth of the rounds, from a very limited replacements, to an impossible defense, to basically unlimited replacements (which i wish i realized sooner). Thanks!

Shards wrote: ↑Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:22 am Doing some experimenting with Data from this Tournament. The below is what the final tournament table would have looked like if:

- First Sort was on Wins
- Then Draws
- Then Points Scored

So much more like a sporting tournament league table where it's very much about having more points than your opponent rather than just scoring as many points as possible. You'd have to be very clear to users which sort of tournament they were playing in, but wondered what people thought of the idea

I'm just wondering what the real point (pardon the pun) would be? You just said above "it's very much about having more points than your opponent rather than just scoring as many points as possible": surely then it's just a matter of what points are awarded for, and what actions/behaviours you want to award?

Also I'm quite certain the system reported a couple of my last games as "draws" (it definitely did for one!) but you have me in those tables as having three wins and three losses... and as I see only 4 draws in your tables I presume you are not looking at draws as per reported by the scenario conditions and end of game reports, just literally where there has been a dead heat in vps. If you are trying to make the scoring system more discriminating and to award effective combat behaviours this seems to me to be counterproductive as it seems both more limited and an arbitrary change. What about the difference between a victory and a major victory? Is a phyrric "victory" as valuable as a rout? Is a bloody defence worth more than a withdrawal which preserves your troops? There are many different ways you can look at "winning".

With that said, I think some kind of "league table" would be a potentially useful idea, not least in helping to initially seed matchuups in later tournaments, and even possibly in setting up some kind of league ladder system (if people are really fixated in trying to establish who is "best"), but in eihter case it would probably need tobe based on something more than a single three (six) game tournament.

And I'm not just saying this because your new table happens to give me the biggest negative adjustment of all participants bar 2... -33? Ooo refereee!