It's a Long Way to Tipperary Round 1

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

As I said before, if you have 1 Axis and 1 Allied winner, balance doesn't matter.  If you are Axis, your points are only ranked against other Axis players.  Allied against other Allied players.  There is no comparing of Axis to Allied.  I am Allied.  I don't have to be better than Axis.  I just have to do better than other Allied players.

 But I don’t believe that is the case is it?  It’s one winner overall from either team, therefore it would kinda matter -  not for enjoyment factor, but in terms of scoring the tourney.

I know the way it is.  I'm saying the way it should be.  You will never actually have balanced scenarios unless you have a force facing an exact equal force of the same Nationality on a blank map or half mirrored from the other half like Chess.  But these are way better, balanced or not.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

As I said before, if you have 1 Axis and 1 Allied winner, balance doesn't matter.  If you are Axis, your points are only ranked against other Axis players.  Allied against other Allied players.  There is no comparing of Axis to Allied.  I am Allied.  I don't have to be better than Axis.  I just have to do better than other Allied players.

 But I don’t believe that is the case is it?  It’s one winner overall from either team, therefore it would kinda matter -  not for enjoyment factor, but in terms of scoring the tourney.

I agree. I would really like to have 3 prizes, 1 each for the Allies and Axis team winner, and one for the random draw to keep participants from dropping out. However, I am limited to 2 prizes per tournament

I will consider my options in balancing out the issue once  Round 1 is complete.  
1. Drop the random draw and use the two prizes for the Axis and Allies winner.
2. Curve the results to award the Tournament Points for this scenario. 
3. Pay for the 3rd prize out my pocket. 
4. ?

Option 1 would be the only consideration.  Option 3 would be totally out and would not be a consideration to begin with.

[HMCS Rosthern]

I have come up with another solution.

The scenario lists 5 objectives with a value of 100 points, for a total of 500 points. The scenario Victory Values are

Major Defeat-----1200
Minor Defeat-----1500
Minor Victory-----1800
Major Victory-----2000

Even if one were to take all 5 objectives it would still be a Major Defeat.

I propose that we raise the values for each objective:

14,15 300 (A)
24,23 300 (B)
27,9   700 ©
32,8   100 (D)
42,31 700 (E)

That means if the Allies take C D E they get a Minor Defeat/Draw. Taking one of A or B Allies get a minor victory. Taking both A and B gets the Allies a major victory.

If we adopt this house rule, it would require the pairings to also report which objectives they took so i could apply the points. 

Given your gaming experience for this scenario to date, do these seem like reasonable victory conditions? I am looking for feedback.

[Arkan]

It's maybe the best solution but it's not a perfect one. I'm sure lot of axis players, including myself, gave ground for time.
In our game, with Steel god, i gave (E) and (D) without fighting and it look like Steel god decided to not attack ©.
If we knew the value of thoose objectives before we certainly would play it differently

[Partizanka]

IMO, the emphasis is far too much with winning and not enough on the enjoyment of participation. I don't even put that much effort into winning anymore because I think it spoils the experience of the sim. In this scenario, I am playing like Paul had pointed out earlier, to divert attention of my enemy to the south.  In trying to achieve this objective, I am not pursuing objectives vigorously because force preservation seems far more important if we were thinking realistically, and achieving that with a minimum of losses would be the ideal situation.  Playing to win changes how one plays the game and is the single main source of gaminess, disputes, distrust, hurt feeling, and abandonment of games, not to mention the continuous changing of rules. The concept of playing the game more as a sim and not as game with the focus on conduct more than on winning may seem sacrilegious to some but after years of play, I find it a most relaxing approach. Trying to accomodate by changing rules and conditions midstream may satisfy some, but there is an equal number that will probably be discouraged no matter what one does. The game can be a lot of fun without a focus on winning.

[vLuttwitz]

[quote pid="456993" dateline="1742072934"]
IMO, the emphasis is far too much with winning and not enough on the enjoyment of participation. I don't even put that much effort into winning anymore because I think it spoils the experience of the sim. In this scenario, I am playing like Paul had pointed out earlier, to divert attention of my enemy to the south.  In trying to achieve this objective, I am not pursuing objectives vigorously because force preservation seems far more important if we were thinking realistically, and achieving that with a minimum of losses would be the ideal situation.  Playing to win changes how one plays the game and is the single main source of gaminess, disputes, distrust, hurt feeling, and abandonment of games, not to mention the continuous changing of rules. The concept of playing the game more as a sim and not as game with the focus on conduct more than on winning may seem sacrilegious to some but after years of play, I find it a most relaxing approach. Trying to accomodate by changing rules and conditions midstream may satisfy some, but there is an equal number that will probably be discouraged no matter what one does. The game can be a lot of fun without a focus on winning.
[/quote]

I agree with that, playing should be mainly for fun. Of course, winning is nice, but it shouldn't overshadow the main idea, which is good entertainment. When I start playing this scenario, I knew my chances as an Allied Player are small, but I have no problem  with that.  

IMO, changing the rules during the game is not a good idea

[HMCS Rosthern]

How about this.

If the current game is completed, both sides get 5 bonus tournament points added onto the Round 1 score.

Round 1 will restart with a new scenario. A new set of Round 1 pairings will be randomly generated. 

Possible Scenarios:

0830_01: Alam Halfa Ridge - Last Try for the Nile. 30 turns. Theblitz.club scenario database shows 19 games played with
1 Axis wins
6 draws
12 Allies Wins

Alternatively, 1102_01: Operation Supercharge, 25 turns.
scenario database shows 7 games played with
2 Allies wins
0 draws
5 Axis Wins

[Steel God]

Patric, I know I don't speak for everyone, but I have a gut feeling I certainly speak for most that have posted on this subject when I say: Don't Change Anything.

Looking back at the thread those of us who have posted on the imbalance of the scenario are making an observation, but I don't think anyone is honestly complaining about it.  As Josey points out, balance is an elusive (and for all practical purposes impossible) thing to achieve in a game that naturally starts with something other than a chess board.  Let it go.  Who knows, the Allied Team may end up with more scenarios titled in their favor by the end of the Tournament, there's no way to know.

Regarding the suggestions you made about addressing the issue, Josey's suggestion of a winner from each team probably is "fairest", but favors the skilled players above all.  The random draw for a game encourages lots of players who are new or maybe less experienced to try their luck and maybe earn a game, so personally I'd hate to see that removed from the Tourney set up.  Giving away 3 games for such a small group of players is probably not practical either.  Changing the values of VP objectives when all games have commenced and some finished is not viable for obvious reasons, and a re-start is probably pointless as there is no guarantee the next one won't be the same way.  

Leave it be and try not to take the observations as an indictment on your Tournament, I don't think that was anyone's intentions.  Besides, now the Allied Team has a built in excuse if we lose, and if we win, oh God they'll be no shutting us up on how we overcame insurmountable odds.

  

[SvenDuuva]

Patric, I know I don't speak for everyone, but I have a gut feeling I certainly speak for most that have posted on this subject when I say: Don't Change Anything.

Yeah, I agree and personally support continuing with the tournament as it is without changing victory conditions, point calculations or prizes. There is already some necessary "unfairness" given that opponents are not seeded but drawn randomly, so one might face a set of more skilled opponents than another (which I think is perfectly fine). 

If at the end of the tournament it seems that either side would have had a significant advantage, you can also announce side-specific winners (without any prize attached to it). Surely there is some pride in being the best of the "losing side"?

That being said, as a relative beginner to WDS games, I was never really entertaining the possibility of really challenging for the top spot. I'm here just for the fun. So I understand that more skilled players might have other views.

[ComradeP]

I don't mind competing vs. my own side instead of vs. everyone for the glory. Not all scenarios will be even remotely balanced, some might feature landslide Allied victories.

I'd say keep everything as it is and don't hand out prizes to the top 1 Allied and Axis players, but keep the prize for the top player and a random draw. That means everyone has a chance to win something.

In terms of glory: with the assistance of the site administrators, perhaps a separate medal (not just a participant medal) could be created for the top 1 player from a side who isn't the tournament winner. I don't know how many people actually look at profiles, but it would be a way to make the achievement of a side's winner visible for the long term.