Caracole Tournament Post-Mortem

[flatsix518]

Even though I proposed it -- I'm not necessarily a fan of a NO list.

But some players have expressed very strong aversions to certain armies -- either because they (in their opinion) are too powerful or non-competitive. I don't want to exclude these armies for everyone -- but could consider individuals creating their personal "Polish army free zone", for instance.

The other point is that I don't want to over-complicate the challenge process. I really don't want anything more complicated that what we've got (both ways challenge).

What I don't want to do is ban certain matches for everyone. But some people seem to think there are killer armies. I think there are just killer players. And I think most of us play better with certain armies than we do with others.

I ran a very informal survey of the Caracole results. Most of the armies (that got played a lot) came out pretty doggone close to 50/50. The one real exception was the Ottomans which lost a lot. I think that is probably more due to player expertise than its innate qualities. My only experience running them against an opponent (playing the Poles) was an easy win.

So there you go.

We need more input from other players.

John

[Vadim84]

Hello John,


I am not "another player" but let me reply to your answer- unlike you I will try to defend my point of view, yes .

If the "no-smthg" army list could be an idea I think it will create bias, ie if I am a player who really cares about winning I will balckmail -esp if it i can decide which armies i dont want to play against- poles, salvo and maybe one or two others. Then what ? Maybe I will get the highest winning % but thats all, wont show anything about gameplaying. I can get it that someone just want to play 30YW, ok, but by restricting armies you are going a bit too far.

Your first -was it yours ?- idea about I pick the armies/you chose is ,from far, the best system : you dont want to play against the Swiss then dont pick them up...or face the possibility to play against them actually the minus may be that players might always chose btwen what they see as the most balanced choice / always the same 3-4 armies, but I think if it might be true for the early stage after one-two round no one will really cares.
The real plus is that you dont put a hard restriction on anything (in my opinion you should put as less restriction as possible) and you also avoid unbalanced choice as we will think twice when picking armies. You could also build a list of armies every player must try during the tournament buuuuttt do you really want to spend so much time watching what others do ? Also you would have to create table to make sure A and B's must-pick armies match, etc...you have better things to do with your time.

Regards,

V.

[flatsix518]

Thanks again, Vadim. I liked your comment.

One point of clarification:

You wrote: "i can decide which armies i dont want to play against- poles, salvo and maybe one or two others."

If you put the Poles on your NO list -- it also means you can't run it, either. You don't get your cake and eat it too...

Also -- if the NO list idea gets traction among a good number of players -- I would want to limit the list to only one or two armies, no more.

John

[krieg63]

All,

I collected data from Caracole battle results. This is a little sloppy, I relied upon reported results and didn't break armies down into periods. But it gives a feel for how armies did. In general, it appears most armies have 40 to 50% win success. Here is the raw data:

.....

In general, it appears that there is a remarkable balance among the majority of the armies. The one that stands out as unfortunate are the Ottomans. There are a few other armies that seem weak, like the Bohemians and the Imperialists. But the sample size for the Bohemians is only two battles. So we may need to focus attention on a relatively small number of non-competitive matches.

Also -- will widening the battlefield help or hurt the Ottomans, for instance?

sorry but your data are not complete
your don't take care of opponent but most important you don't have final score.
It's not the same to finish a battle with 10 or 30 pnts of difference between the 2.

check the average final score after 150 battles


suedois 30/34 - 23,6
royalist edgehill 42 - 25,33333333
transylvanien 32/45 - 30,5
royalist 45/48 - 32,19047619
polak 18/32 - 33,5
espagne it 94/02 - 33,66666667
suisse it 94/15 - 33,8
francais it 50/59 - 34,5
transylvanien 18/31 - 34,66666667
coventry 42/47 - 37
othomans 30/48 - 37,66666667
coventry 48/62 - 39
parlement nm 45 - 39,09090909
protestant 18/31 - 39,14285714
suedois 35/48 - 40,4
parlement nm 46/60 - 41,83333333
-
espagne it 43/59 - 51,5
francais it 94/25 - 51,7
catho 32/38 - 55,0625
royaliste 43/44 - 56,85714286
catho 39/48 - 58,2
othomans 18/29 - 58,5
catho 19/32 - 59,7
parlement 43/45 - 60,66666667
parlement 42/43 - 67,33333333

clearly there are some army more difficult than other

[flatsix518]

Where is this data from?

[rbodleyscott]

guillaume, I have to confess that I don't know what the values in your table represent.

[krieg63]

guillaume, I have to confess that I don't know what the values in your table represent.

by average final score I mean the average % of loose.
for example I have play with or again 15 time with Swedish 30/34 . their average loose was 23.6%

at the opposite I have play with or again 9 time parliamentary 42/43 their average loose was 67.3%

Where is this data from?

from the 150 battles I have finish so far

[krieg63]

guillaume, I have to confess that I don't know what the values in your table represent.

by average final score I mean the average % of loose.
for example I have play with or again 15 time with Swedish 30/34 . their average loose was 23.6%

at the opposite I have play with or again 9 time parliamentary 42/43 their average loose was 67.3%

Where is this data from?

from the 150 battles I have finish so far

[flatsix518]

Guillame,

you wrote: "by average final score I mean the average % of loose.
for example I have play with or again 15 time with Swedish 30/34 . their average loose was 23.6%
at the opposite I have play with or again 9 time parliamentary 42/43 their average loose was 67.3%"

Is that average casualties, or average win/loss?

John

[krieg63]

Guillame,

you wrote: "by average final score I mean the average % of loose.
for example I have play with or again 15 time with Swedish 30/34 . their average loose was 23.6%
at the opposite I have play with or again 9 time parliamentary 42/43 their average loose was 67.3%"

Is that average casualties, or average win/loss?

John

average casualties

[flatsix518]

Guillaume,

OK -- now I understand the data a bit.

So what do you think are a good range of competitive armies? Ones not too strong, not too weak?

John

[flatsix518]

All,

I've updated the topics discussion post. I think most points are becoming a no-brainer and should be non-controversial. The one remaining one is related to topic #4 (armies competitiveness). My current thoughts on that particular topic are posted both there and here:

============== Copy of #4 Topic ==========

4) Are some army match-ups unfair? How should this be addressed?
- All, my thinking is evolving some on this. I personally think the armies are, in general, well balanced. But I can see the viewpoint of others who think differently. I was advocating a “NO List” before, but that may do too much or too little to really address this issue – so I’m abandoning that notion.

- I am still opposed to Pot Luck. I think it eliminates a player’s pursuit of historical interest in certain armies and the list building part of the game. But I’m including it for completeness.

- I went back to some of Guillaume’s posts on this and his idea of a “pre-challenge” may be the best fix. In a pre-challenge, the challenger will announce (on the forum or in a PM) to his opponent the army he wants to play. The person being challenged then answers (on the forum or in a PM) which army he wants to play. Then the challenger creates the challenge.

- In doing this, we really have to options. Constrain to historical opponents (Filter Army List “On”) or open to all historic contemporaries (Filter Army List “Off”).

- I’m OK with either option – but I think we need to agree to not do civil wars since it will be very difficult for players to distinguish friend and foe in such battles.

- So I’d like some input, again.

a. Don’t change anything – keep present method of challenger specifying both armies and only historical opponents.
b. Do Pre-Challenge, but only historic opponents (filter “on”).
c. Do Pre-Challenge, but open to all possible opponents (filter “off”) – but not allow civil wars (i.e., picking same army/nationality).
d. Go to Pot Luck

[rbodleyscott]

Of the choices available, I prefer (b).

It isn't, however as fair as:
1) Challenger declares the 2 armies.
2) Challengee picks which side he wants to play.
3) Challenger sets up challenge accordingly.

This is because, with (b) or (c) the initial challenger has to pick his army and then the challengee can pick whatever he thinks is its most difficult opponent. This may deter challengers from picking armies that are more easy than average to counter in this way (e.g. Poles), so could reduce the variety of games in the tournament.

[flatsix518]

Richard,

I'm sorry I didn't include this as one of the options. This is probably the soundest solution.

Did you take a look at the updated comments on the other topics? (Tournament format, board width, etc.).

Thanks for the input,

John

[rbodleyscott]

Did you take a look at the updated comments on the other topics? (Tournament format, board width, etc.).

If you mean the stuff in the second post in the thread, then yes. Looks fine.

[moncholee]

1) Challenger declares the 2 armies.
2) Challengee picks which side he wants to play.
3) Challenger sets up challenge accordingly.

I think this is the best option.

Regards,
Javier.

[rbodleyscott]

1) Challenger declares the 2 armies.
2) Challengee picks which side he wants to play.
3) Challenger sets up challenge accordingly.

I think this is the best option.

Regards,
Javier.

Or even quicker:

1) Challenger declares the 2 armies.
2) Challengee picks which side he wants to play and sets up the in-game challenge accordingly.

[moncholee]

That´s right!

[Triarii]

Hi - If I can my view.

First and foremost - big thanks to flatsix for starting this in the first place.

Then

a) Am glad that the wider map is being added as I do believe that this gives horse the greater flexibility needed and will mitigate against pinning them against a map edge.

b) Regarding the choice of armies I tend towards the player A selects army and player B responds with a choice of filtered opponents.
However I am aware that although the filter will prevent player B choosing the same army there will remain some no choice match ups
e.g. Player A choice of Covenanting Scots may only be matched by Parliamentary New Model Army.
The result of this method may mean too many such challenges. Unintended result = we would end up playing a far more restricted set. As in "Oh no not that bloody choice of no choice again or choice of two"

Can I make these counter suggestions/amended suggestions

Keep the current method or use the new suggestion but, in either case restrict players to choosing the same pair of challenges (Current System) or same army (New System)

i.e.
So either as now
An open battle challenge is set up with large map and filter options on:
Player A chooses Scots Covenanters 1648-1652 vs New Model Army 1646-1660 - Player B accepts challenge
Player A cannot choose this challenge pairing again in this tourney - if s/he does result is a default loss. They could choose Scots Covenanters 1648-1652 vs another army type if that filter option existed.
or
Player A chooses Scots Covenanters 1648-1652
Player B chooses from available options- New Model Army being only possible in this instance
Player A may not use the Scots Covenanters 1648-1652 again in this tourney. If they exist in other periods (in this case they do 1642-1647 -though Parliament) that would be a different choice and allowable.

Either of these would mean a check on results but the way in which we post them can handle this.

My own preference would be to keep the current system and restrict the same challenge pair to once per tourney - simple straight forward and I am sure easily checkable if results must be posted in the current fashion.
This because it will force us all to use a variety of paired armies in challenge. Inevitably there will be favourites and we will see more of particular match ups across the whole tourney but for individual players it will be a question of do you keep your personal favourite 'in the bag' for the possibility of that draw against Mr Bodley-Scott or Pantherboy or use it now.

[TheGrayMouser]

1) Challenger declares the 2 armies.
2) Challengee picks which side he wants to play.
3) Challenger sets up challenge accordingly.

I think this is the best option.

Regards,
Javier.

Or even quicker:

1) Challenger declares the 2 armies.
2) Challengee picks which side he wants to play and sets up the in-game challenge accordingly.

this one is fast clean, minimal exchange between players prior to getting the challenge up on the server
based on the options presented (except for mine about hidden armies declared booo )
either this one of the way it is now woul dbe my choice.