Best of luck as you will need the wisdom of Solomon on this one
I've followed your tournament with much interest but in truth probably have little right to comment - particularly as I did not foresee such a problem arising. However it has.....and what a whopper it is. Sorry to say Ace but I don't think its possible to simply admit the error and attempt to move on .......not without destroying the integrity of the tournament you and others have worked so hard to develop. If you do then whoever wins will be unable to claim that the victory was fair. I have no idea how but it just seems to me, if justice is to prevail that there has to be some way of accommodating the disadvantaged losers into your next round.
Best of luck as you will need the wisdom of Solomon on this one
Best of luck as you will need the wisdom of Solomon on this one
Ace wrote:By looking at the picture, you seem to deserve to advance to Q-finals, but Seraphim inflicted 110.000 CSA casualties to you inflicting 55.000 CSA casualties. The game adds VP for each regiment destroyed. There may lay the answer for his VP tally. And it seems, there was a bloodbath in last 6 turns of their game, with CSA casualties rising for additional 50.000 (your total in 24 turns).
As for knowing the score, you are right, Seraphim was very much privileged by knowing your score tally, he knew he should push to catch you up and that information has resulted in more bloody match earning him higher score. I admit that was an error on my part, but I cannot rectify it now other than say I am sorry it happened. This is a new system proposed by FelixZ, and never tried before, with its good and bad parts. Learning from it, we should not let that in the second round. Every 6 turns, score should be PMed to pgr who will publish the standings only after all matches have passed 6 turn mark. That is fair.
Also, for side choosing, I propose each of us send it by PM to pgr, so there is no uneven advantage by those who choose to wait and see what the other pair choose. Lindi, FelixZ, Skibear and me get to choose which side they want.
About last match of this round, CitizenX had some complaints, I propose he posts them here, so we can rule if they are valid or not to advance to the next round.
I would also wait for official 1.04. (should be available in the next week) to start the next round.
It is not so much a complaint. I would rtather say that I object to the final score and I want to have an arbitral award on. But fear not. The tournament can go on as far as I am concerned. I offer Jim my place even in the case should the outcome be in my favour. He is a much better player than I am and deserves to go to the finals.
In fact, I am not after personal gain here but to come to a better solution of certain situations in future tournaments, that are hopefully coming.
I wouldn't prolly come out with it at this moment but as it affects Liberty too, I need to say something now. There were three rulings during my match, all heavily favouring the USA, two of wich where critical in a matter that I think they are responsible for the fact that Jim and Seraphim go to the finals, and not Liberty and I.
It is late here now and I am going to continue this tomorrow and present you with the hst files in question and what I think went wrong in those turns.
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Citizen X wrote:It is late here now and I am going to continue this tomorrow and present you with the hst files in question and what I think went wrong in those turns.
Citizen, do include me in any discussion of game irregularities. (Either by e-mail or PM). Beyond the bug Lindi reported in resolving a turn, which necessitated a re-running of the turn, I'm a little in the dark about other irregularities. (Other than the issues of score reporting delved into above.)
I do want to say that I think we are having a very successful tournament up to this point. The point of me trying to get this started was to have an excuse to get people together, play loads of games, and work out the kinks of a tournament system. The elimination system we have settled on isn't perfect, but it seems simpler and more fair than a direct elimination system.
The main impression I have is that we are all very balanced players (with the possible exception of yours truly!). Close matches are going to stress any scoring system.
As for the next round, we will start upon the publication of the next patch (which should be by the end of next week.) Lindi, Ace, Skibear, and FelixZ please confirm to me your faction preference IN A PM (I know I have gotten an e-mail from some, but please do PM me as well).
In the next round, we will be more organized with information. Hosts should PM me results at 6 turn intervals, and I will publish the results only after all games have passed the number of turns in question. I do want the tournament forum to be a place where observers can follow the progress, so mini-aar type reports can be published, but only up to the turn of the official results.
(To be clear, when all matches have played through turn 6, I will release the standings for all games up to turn 6, and at that point folks can post details about battles etc, that occurred up to that point.)
As for the newly eliminated, we are going to be the hosts for the next round. In addition, I would be happy to play some side matches with any interested eliminated player
One turn I have do a other resoltion because Grant dead for no reason. Not in fight, and not event.
Only ship fire in this area, I can't explaint how Grant are dead for Seraphim said is a big bug, for me not total sure, but Grant and Lee, for me can't remove of the game for no reason, so I accepte to do a new resolve.
Only ship fire in this area, I can't explaint how Grant are dead for Seraphim said is a big bug, for me not total sure, but Grant and Lee, for me can't remove of the game for no reason, so I accepte to do a new resolve.
No: river movement with his army.
CSA’s general Polk was in the same area. The game seems to have initiated a battle but there was no fighting at all: no battle, no retreat, no victory, no defeat, no NM or PV earned or lost, no casualties except Grant.
So I asked for another resolution because I lost Grant without reason.
Actually the best explanation is: Grant got drunk and fell of the ship. But this is not a possibility supported by the game.
CSA’s general Polk was in the same area. The game seems to have initiated a battle but there was no fighting at all: no battle, no retreat, no victory, no defeat, no NM or PV earned or lost, no casualties except Grant.
So I asked for another resolution because I lost Grant without reason.
Actually the best explanation is: Grant got drunk and fell of the ship. But this is not a possibility supported by the game.
Seraphim wrote:No: river movement with his army.
CSA’s general Polk was in the same area. The game seems to have initiated a battle but there was no fighting at all: no battle, no retreat, no victory, no defeat, no NM or PV earned or lost, no casualties except Grant.
So I asked for another resolution because I lost Grant without reason.
Actually the best explanation is: Grant got drunk and fell of the ship. But this is not a possibility supported by the game.
Are you saying that two opposing river forces were in the same river region?
Ace wrote:Lindi said there was ship fire in the area. Did the CSA ships fired at your troops?
No. But there was a battle between Foote’s and Hollin’s fleets at Kaskaskia Confluent, just north of Big Muddy Confluent where I lost Grant.
I must say that this section of the Mississippi was a big mess this turn.
If Lindi didn’t already done it, I can transmit the HST file if someone want to look by himself.
If CSA had bombard button on their fleet on, it would fire on adjacent regions containing US troops if adjacent region contains both US and CSA troops. I don't think the code was written for firing at adjacent river regions, but rather for adjacent land regions containing mix of Confederate and Union troops (help in the battle by river bombardment). But I see this possibility.
Did the fleet had bombard button on? Was this the case?
Did the fleet had bombard button on? Was this the case?
So, let's start at the beginning. I had contact with Ace about this already, as member of the staff. I had decided to play the match to an end and not stall it with a discussion, because for me it's the case that counts. I think that this tournament is a great thing and that I hope for further events to come, that's why I opted for an open discussion, rather than some sort of private trial or so. The things described here can happen anytime again and I think it best to have a set of rules to take effect. That is what I want to raise from here, so the hosts and players have something to rely on in such cases.
The case:
The game Pool Left Seraphim(USA)-Citizen X(CSA) saw three rulings by the host and staff.
My issue is, that they heavily interfered with the flow of the game and heavily favoured the USA. That this was in a matter, that it unrepairebly put the CSA on the losing strait (and another player in the same pool with it).
The preliminary thoughts:
- As I said before, this is not to blame anybody or anything.
- I chose as strategy an aggressive one, building a lot of cheap infantry and totally abandon, industry, rail, ships, and partly even cannons. I thought that the highest risk here was that a one year campaign would encourage the USA to excactly do this and have an all out on Richmond strategy. Thus I wanted to sow uncertainty in the heart of my opponent to not overlook any front and diverse the troops and go with a more conservative strategy. I opted for threatening the hinterland in Illinois and Indiana/ North Kentucky so I could manage to delay the denvelopement of a major US offensive untill I was solidly in the plus with VP. Naturally I had to dedicate all my reserves into this and mostly left the seaboard blank. I wanted to have them occupied later. I counted that by a bold strategy I could come out with a plus on VP side regardless of what I would lose in late game. You will see that all went quite well, despite of two of my divisions twindeling at Savannah, which still I can't quite explain in that extent, but maybe I calculated wrong. I didn't bring it to the staffs notice anyway.
But I managed to take St Louis and thus stall the US march through Missouri and Grant countered this by marching into the off of Tennessee threatening Memphis and Nashville, but without healthy supply lines he wouldn't come much further and my VP calculation could still be valid. However this tactic relied very much onto an opponent that goes the "classical" way and on surprise.
Have a look at turn 14 and the first ruling:
[ATTACH]29749[/ATTACH]
At turn 14 the USA sent Lyons to Ft Donelson through the waters of neutral Kentucky. Quite a surprise for me, as this move was against the houserules in almost all ACW 1 or 2 games I played, naturally to force an attacker to pay at least a political price for this move by taking the "Kentucky card".
So I asked pgr if this move was valid and he confirmed that it was valid. I didn't put forth a discussion here but swallowed the blow. I knew that the game engine allows it and I should have asked in advance, that's why. Still I believe that this houserule is a good one and investing 25 VP into this move with so many advantages for the USA is not asked too much anyway. Note that Nashville and Memphis are both nearly abandoned and I considered them lost but still with the St Louis force and an operateble riverfleet I could make up with it VP wise. Till turn 24 that is.
I so much anticipated the coming three turns or so. Will things go as hoped for?
Have a look at turn 16 and the second ruling:
[ATTACH]29748[/ATTACH]
Up comes turn 16 and yip, it so much went as planned. See how five forces of the USA are in the off, more or less. Grant and Lyons didn't march into Nashville and Memphis but stalled themselves in Northern Tennessee and Sumner and McClellan are stuck in Missouri while Fremont guards Cairo. On the other hand Johnston sits at St Louis and in two turns, with the returning riverfleet he would be mobile on the rivers (avoid combat works quite well for riverfleets). I just sent the fleet to Kentucky with Hindmans division on board who his now about to take Louisville. Yeah! This is displayed in the turn 16 org file. I now could presume that I would prevail VP wise. With a mobile Johnston and an entire army of the North 2-3 turns away from any possibilty to really harm me in any way I only had to sleep through the last turns and presto.
[ATTACH]29747[/ATTACH]
Alas, in the worst of moments the game crashed in turn execution and despite all efforts would not go to turn 17. A solution had to be found. There are several possibilties here. I had prefered the game was stalled here. Two thirds were played and an extrapolition of the VPs to be expected could have been done. Also going back 5 to 10 turns to allow for a completly different approach for both parties would have been appropriate. Or, as a third possibilty, going back one turn and force the players to reenact the exact same moves could have been executed. But the host and staff opted for the worst possibilty. Going back one turn with no restrictions. That had several effects.
I was totally stripped off my element of surprise.
The USA learned a whole lot intelligence that they had gained from the corrupted turn 16.
The USA learned that I might be quite mobile in their back and really meant threatening their hinterland
With their strategic transportation potential (that I totally lacked) they were able to come forth with a totally new approach as the rather stupid one they had conducted before.
Lack of transports fixed the CSA with staying with their approach. Go figure.
Naturally they took this golden opportunity. Grant and Lyons didn't go into Tennessee. Sumner didn't go into Missouri.
They all went into St Louis after Johnston who couldn't move without fleet, that still was at Kentucky.
Allthough I ordered it back immediatly it couldn't arrive untill Johnston got malmed.
Have a look at the new turn 16 in the alt file. It was here where I and Liberty got stripped off the fruits of our war efforts. Sorry to say so, but I think it is just a fact. On top of intelligence gained, the USA gained several turns worth. First the turn that brought Grant into Northern Tennessee, then the two to three turns that he had needed to pull out of Tennessee or go for one of the objects there. Those are maybe 150- 200 VPs that I lacked at the end.
Now comes turn 19:
[ATTACH]29750[/ATTACH]
Look how the USA goes with four divisions into Tennessee, with Johnston still in the off at Missouri, ready to snap Nashville, only they are missing something. Grant is gone. I don't know how that had happened, neither does the US. They demanded a replay. And immediatly got one. No asking me if I approve. No looking at the logs. No asking the staff or the public. No investigation. Just that. They asked and they got. And voila: Grant was back in game. Later successfully attacking Nashville, what may had not been possible without him adding stats. Adding even more VPs to the US and denying them to me. That I still only got short by a slim margin shows how good I had initially started. I think it is here where the match got depreciated. Regardless whether the investigation had shown a bug or not. Not asking my approval alone does it. Also I think that effects are wad unless proven a bug. The developer could have been asked in this case, for instance
At this point I really got pissed. Who wouldn't have. Sorry if I insulted anybody in the process or so. I didn't mean it. But I doubt that this match was played under fair circumstances and if it wasn't for the respect to the staff and our host I would ask that the match was revalued and counted in my favour.
I want an arbitral award in any way by the staff and the public, so that we can figure out the best way to handle stuff like that in the future.
regards,
Citizen X
The case:
The game Pool Left Seraphim(USA)-Citizen X(CSA) saw three rulings by the host and staff.
My issue is, that they heavily interfered with the flow of the game and heavily favoured the USA. That this was in a matter, that it unrepairebly put the CSA on the losing strait (and another player in the same pool with it).
The preliminary thoughts:
- As I said before, this is not to blame anybody or anything.
- I chose as strategy an aggressive one, building a lot of cheap infantry and totally abandon, industry, rail, ships, and partly even cannons. I thought that the highest risk here was that a one year campaign would encourage the USA to excactly do this and have an all out on Richmond strategy. Thus I wanted to sow uncertainty in the heart of my opponent to not overlook any front and diverse the troops and go with a more conservative strategy. I opted for threatening the hinterland in Illinois and Indiana/ North Kentucky so I could manage to delay the denvelopement of a major US offensive untill I was solidly in the plus with VP. Naturally I had to dedicate all my reserves into this and mostly left the seaboard blank. I wanted to have them occupied later. I counted that by a bold strategy I could come out with a plus on VP side regardless of what I would lose in late game. You will see that all went quite well, despite of two of my divisions twindeling at Savannah, which still I can't quite explain in that extent, but maybe I calculated wrong. I didn't bring it to the staffs notice anyway.
But I managed to take St Louis and thus stall the US march through Missouri and Grant countered this by marching into the off of Tennessee threatening Memphis and Nashville, but without healthy supply lines he wouldn't come much further and my VP calculation could still be valid. However this tactic relied very much onto an opponent that goes the "classical" way and on surprise.
Have a look at turn 14 and the first ruling:
[ATTACH]29749[/ATTACH]
At turn 14 the USA sent Lyons to Ft Donelson through the waters of neutral Kentucky. Quite a surprise for me, as this move was against the houserules in almost all ACW 1 or 2 games I played, naturally to force an attacker to pay at least a political price for this move by taking the "Kentucky card".
So I asked pgr if this move was valid and he confirmed that it was valid. I didn't put forth a discussion here but swallowed the blow. I knew that the game engine allows it and I should have asked in advance, that's why. Still I believe that this houserule is a good one and investing 25 VP into this move with so many advantages for the USA is not asked too much anyway. Note that Nashville and Memphis are both nearly abandoned and I considered them lost but still with the St Louis force and an operateble riverfleet I could make up with it VP wise. Till turn 24 that is.
I so much anticipated the coming three turns or so. Will things go as hoped for?
Have a look at turn 16 and the second ruling:
[ATTACH]29748[/ATTACH]
Up comes turn 16 and yip, it so much went as planned. See how five forces of the USA are in the off, more or less. Grant and Lyons didn't march into Nashville and Memphis but stalled themselves in Northern Tennessee and Sumner and McClellan are stuck in Missouri while Fremont guards Cairo. On the other hand Johnston sits at St Louis and in two turns, with the returning riverfleet he would be mobile on the rivers (avoid combat works quite well for riverfleets). I just sent the fleet to Kentucky with Hindmans division on board who his now about to take Louisville. Yeah! This is displayed in the turn 16 org file. I now could presume that I would prevail VP wise. With a mobile Johnston and an entire army of the North 2-3 turns away from any possibilty to really harm me in any way I only had to sleep through the last turns and presto.
[ATTACH]29747[/ATTACH]
Alas, in the worst of moments the game crashed in turn execution and despite all efforts would not go to turn 17. A solution had to be found. There are several possibilties here. I had prefered the game was stalled here. Two thirds were played and an extrapolition of the VPs to be expected could have been done. Also going back 5 to 10 turns to allow for a completly different approach for both parties would have been appropriate. Or, as a third possibilty, going back one turn and force the players to reenact the exact same moves could have been executed. But the host and staff opted for the worst possibilty. Going back one turn with no restrictions. That had several effects.
I was totally stripped off my element of surprise.
The USA learned a whole lot intelligence that they had gained from the corrupted turn 16.
The USA learned that I might be quite mobile in their back and really meant threatening their hinterland
With their strategic transportation potential (that I totally lacked) they were able to come forth with a totally new approach as the rather stupid one they had conducted before.
Lack of transports fixed the CSA with staying with their approach. Go figure.
Naturally they took this golden opportunity. Grant and Lyons didn't go into Tennessee. Sumner didn't go into Missouri.
They all went into St Louis after Johnston who couldn't move without fleet, that still was at Kentucky.
Allthough I ordered it back immediatly it couldn't arrive untill Johnston got malmed.
Have a look at the new turn 16 in the alt file. It was here where I and Liberty got stripped off the fruits of our war efforts. Sorry to say so, but I think it is just a fact. On top of intelligence gained, the USA gained several turns worth. First the turn that brought Grant into Northern Tennessee, then the two to three turns that he had needed to pull out of Tennessee or go for one of the objects there. Those are maybe 150- 200 VPs that I lacked at the end.
Now comes turn 19:
[ATTACH]29750[/ATTACH]
Look how the USA goes with four divisions into Tennessee, with Johnston still in the off at Missouri, ready to snap Nashville, only they are missing something. Grant is gone. I don't know how that had happened, neither does the US. They demanded a replay. And immediatly got one. No asking me if I approve. No looking at the logs. No asking the staff or the public. No investigation. Just that. They asked and they got. And voila: Grant was back in game. Later successfully attacking Nashville, what may had not been possible without him adding stats. Adding even more VPs to the US and denying them to me. That I still only got short by a slim margin shows how good I had initially started. I think it is here where the match got depreciated. Regardless whether the investigation had shown a bug or not. Not asking my approval alone does it. Also I think that effects are wad unless proven a bug. The developer could have been asked in this case, for instance
At this point I really got pissed. Who wouldn't have. Sorry if I insulted anybody in the process or so. I didn't mean it. But I doubt that this match was played under fair circumstances and if it wasn't for the respect to the staff and our host I would ask that the match was revalued and counted in my favour.
I want an arbitral award in any way by the staff and the public, so that we can figure out the best way to handle stuff like that in the future.
regards,
Citizen X
- Attachments
-
- Turn 19 Pool Left Seraphim(USA)-Citizen X(CSA).zip
- (259.54 KiB) Downloaded 280 times
-
- Turn 14 Pool Left Seraphim(USA)-Citizen X(CSA).zip
- (257.18 KiB) Downloaded 287 times
-
- Turn 16 org Pool Left Seraphim(USA)-Citizen X(CSA).zip
- (259.93 KiB) Downloaded 239 times
-
- Turn 16 alt Pool Left Seraphim(USA)-Citizen X(CSA).zip
- (255.72 KiB) Downloaded 283 times
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.
pgr wrote:Citizen, do include me in any discussion of game irregularities. (Either by e-mail or PM). Beyond the bug Lindi reported in resolving a turn, which necessitated a re-running of the turn, I'm a little in the dark about other irregularities. (Other than the issues of score reporting delved into above.)
I do want to say that I think we are having a very successful tournament up to this point. The point of me trying to get this started was to have an excuse to get people together, play loads of games, and work out the kinks of a tournament system. The elimination system we have settled on isn't perfect, but it seems simpler and more fair than a direct elimination system.
The main impression I have is that we are all very balanced players (with the possible exception of yours truly!). Close matches are going to stress any scoring system.
As for the next round, we will start upon the publication of the next patch (which should be by the end of next week.) Lindi, Ace, Skibear, and FelixZ please confirm to me your faction preference IN A PM (I know I have gotten an e-mail from some, but please do PM me as well).
In the next round, we will be more organized with information. Hosts should PM me results at 6 turn intervals, and I will publish the results only after all games have passed the number of turns in question. I do want the tournament forum to be a place where observers can follow the progress, so mini-aar type reports can be published, but only up to the turn of the official results.
(To be clear, when all matches have played through turn 6, I will release the standings for all games up to turn 6, and at that point folks can post details about battles etc, that occurred up to that point.)
As for the newly eliminated, we are going to be the hosts for the next round. In addition, I would be happy to play some side matches with any interested eliminated player
Naturally I can be host
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.
I can totally understand you CitizenX, I would also be mad in this situation. In my game against Havi there was a strange situation where 2 of his Divisions got teleported into safety because there was bad weather in the mountains of West Virginia. Without that, these Divisions would have ceased to exist, as they were tired, not motivated to figth (low NM), out of supply and chased by angry rebels, who by the way got teleported back to where they came from, because of the weather.
Not that it really mattered for the end result, as I had a solid advantage over the U.S. but still it bugged me in this particular moment. Later in the game, in the spring turns, when the Divisions recovered and entered the fight again I always got a bit angry when I saw them and wished to anihilate them. Unfortunetaly that did not happen but they still lost some battles against my rebels until the end.
So it seems the results for you game stand to and there will be no changes to the outcome. I hope that will be the only game in this tournament that is an bad example of how to properly run a fair game as a host.
Not that it really mattered for the end result, as I had a solid advantage over the U.S. but still it bugged me in this particular moment. Later in the game, in the spring turns, when the Divisions recovered and entered the fight again I always got a bit angry when I saw them and wished to anihilate them. Unfortunetaly that did not happen but they still lost some battles against my rebels until the end.
So it seems the results for you game stand to and there will be no changes to the outcome. I hope that will be the only game in this tournament that is an bad example of how to properly run a fair game as a host.
In regards to the 1st ruling (ships violating KY waters during turn 14). Liberty Bell did the same thing to me. He sailed a force into Ft. Henry and then into Nashville via neutral KY rivers.
As to the other 2 issues, as an interested party, I can't take a position either way.
I will say that things happen during games (for example, the host for our game forgot to add my orders 2 times, and the turn had to be re-processed with the orders I had sent). But this was nothing like what happened with your game.
As to the other 2 issues, as an interested party, I can't take a position either way.
I will say that things happen during games (for example, the host for our game forgot to add my orders 2 times, and the turn had to be re-processed with the orders I had sent). But this was nothing like what happened with your game.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Some tough rulings have to be made here:
1) The host of Seraphim - Citizen match asked for this one, and we all agreed that KY waters are open to everyone unless agreed by pre-round house rules. Anyway, does anybody think sailing ships near the TN bank of the river would provoke reaction from the KY officials. I don't think so.
2) This one is difficult. We all know that the game stalled for no apparent reasons. It could go further if we didn't put CSA orders in (there was an error in hst file reading csa.ord file). We have tried everything to get it going, but we didn't succeed in doing so. Going back for 1 turn was the most logical decision. Why were the players allowed to change previous orders, I don't know. I think it was an error which if I were the host would not do. Of course, it is difficult for a host to control if every division has behaved as in previous turn, but players should have been instructed to repeat done turn. It is common sense. And here you have some legitimacy in your claim.
3) I wieved the files sent to me by Seraphim. So this is the case. Grant's Army was travelling via river transports from StLouis to FtDonelson. It had bombard button on. At the same time Polk Corps was travelling from the region south of StLouis via river transports to Charleston,MO. Both Union fleet and CSA fleet tried to intercept those movements in Kaskaskia confluent. CSA fleet had bombardment button on. Both Polk and Grant evaded enemy fleets who battled each other in Kaskasia confluent. But, in the same turn, those fleet battled each other in Kaskaskia confluent, there was a message that Polk river transports and Grant river transports engaged in BigMuddy confluent with battle not happening for the lack of ammo. Maybe the battle started with Grant being the only casualty before the ships disengaged for the lack of ammo, but there lacks definite clear message about it. It is certainly not a clear call, and it should have been investigated, not just replay the turn in question. I imagine Citizen being so upset because of the replay, his further gameplay suffered because of feeling he has been damaged by referee error. I don't think Lindi was biased in this decision. It is 50-50% call difficult to make judgment.
So were are we now, do we act like in professional sports when there is bad referee decision that influenced the game outcome, or do we try to rectify it somehow. In any case, I am against ruling the game to Citizen, and putting Seraphim and Jim out of the tournament. The games are finished, and those complaints should have been resolved when they happened. Maybe, Citizen was convinced he would win anyway and didn't want to stall it.
What to do. Do we continue, or do we add more players to the Qs round is the question in the domain of the tournament director. Whatever he does, I am sure he will try to judge as fair as possible and with no biases.
1) The host of Seraphim - Citizen match asked for this one, and we all agreed that KY waters are open to everyone unless agreed by pre-round house rules. Anyway, does anybody think sailing ships near the TN bank of the river would provoke reaction from the KY officials. I don't think so.
2) This one is difficult. We all know that the game stalled for no apparent reasons. It could go further if we didn't put CSA orders in (there was an error in hst file reading csa.ord file). We have tried everything to get it going, but we didn't succeed in doing so. Going back for 1 turn was the most logical decision. Why were the players allowed to change previous orders, I don't know. I think it was an error which if I were the host would not do. Of course, it is difficult for a host to control if every division has behaved as in previous turn, but players should have been instructed to repeat done turn. It is common sense. And here you have some legitimacy in your claim.
3) I wieved the files sent to me by Seraphim. So this is the case. Grant's Army was travelling via river transports from StLouis to FtDonelson. It had bombard button on. At the same time Polk Corps was travelling from the region south of StLouis via river transports to Charleston,MO. Both Union fleet and CSA fleet tried to intercept those movements in Kaskaskia confluent. CSA fleet had bombardment button on. Both Polk and Grant evaded enemy fleets who battled each other in Kaskasia confluent. But, in the same turn, those fleet battled each other in Kaskaskia confluent, there was a message that Polk river transports and Grant river transports engaged in BigMuddy confluent with battle not happening for the lack of ammo. Maybe the battle started with Grant being the only casualty before the ships disengaged for the lack of ammo, but there lacks definite clear message about it. It is certainly not a clear call, and it should have been investigated, not just replay the turn in question. I imagine Citizen being so upset because of the replay, his further gameplay suffered because of feeling he has been damaged by referee error. I don't think Lindi was biased in this decision. It is 50-50% call difficult to make judgment.
So were are we now, do we act like in professional sports when there is bad referee decision that influenced the game outcome, or do we try to rectify it somehow. In any case, I am against ruling the game to Citizen, and putting Seraphim and Jim out of the tournament. The games are finished, and those complaints should have been resolved when they happened. Maybe, Citizen was convinced he would win anyway and didn't want to stall it.
What to do. Do we continue, or do we add more players to the Qs round is the question in the domain of the tournament director. Whatever he does, I am sure he will try to judge as fair as possible and with no biases.
Some tough rulings have to be made here:
1) The host of Seraphim - Citizen match asked for this one, and we all agreed that KY waters are open to everyone unless agreed by pre-round house rules. Anyway, does anybody think sailing ships would provoke reaction from the KY officials. I don't think so.
2) This one is difficult. We all know that the game stalled for no apparent reasons. It could go further if we didn't put CSA orders in (there was an error in hst file reading csa.ord file). We have tried everything to get it going, but we didn't succeed in doing so. Going back for 1 turn was the most logical decision. Why were the players allowed to change previous orders, I don't know. I think it was an error which if I were the host would not do. Of course, it is difficult for a host to control if every division has behaved as in previous turn, but players should have been instructed to repeat done turn. It is common sense. And here you have some legitimacy in your claim.
3) I wieved the files sent to me by Seraphim. So this is the case. Grant's Army was travelling via river transports from StLouis to FtDonelson. It had bombard button on. At the same time Polk Corps was travelling from the region south of StLouis via river transports to Charleston,MO. Both Union fleet and CSA fleet tried to intercept those movements in Kaskaskia confluent. CSA fleet had bombardment button on. Both Polk and Grant evaded enemy fleets who battled each other in Kaskasia confluent. But, in the same turn those fleet battled each other in Kaskaskia confluent, there was a message that Polk river transports and Grant river transports engaged in BigMuddy confluent with battle not happening for the lack of ammo. Maybe the battle started with Grant being the only casualty before the ships disengaged for the lack of ammo, but there lacks definite clear message about it. It is certainly not a clear call, and it should have been investigated, not just replay the turn in question. I imagine Citizen being so upset because of the replay, his further gameplay suffered because of feeling he has been damaged by referee error. I don't think Lindi was biased in this decision. It is 50-50% call difficult to make judgment.
So were are we now, do we act like in professional sports when there is bad referee decision that influenced the game outcome, or do we try to rectify it somehow. In any case, I am against ruling the game to Citizen, and putting Seraphim and Jim out of the tournament. The games are finished, and those complaints should have been resolved when they happened. For example, Hawkeye technology in Tennis can be called only after the point, not after the match. Maybe, Citizen was convinced he would win anyway and didn't want to stall it.
What to do. Do we continue, or do we add more players to the Qs round is the question in the domain of the tournament director. Whatever he does, I am sure he will try to judge as fair as possible and with no biases.
1) The host of Seraphim - Citizen match asked for this one, and we all agreed that KY waters are open to everyone unless agreed by pre-round house rules. Anyway, does anybody think sailing ships would provoke reaction from the KY officials. I don't think so.
2) This one is difficult. We all know that the game stalled for no apparent reasons. It could go further if we didn't put CSA orders in (there was an error in hst file reading csa.ord file). We have tried everything to get it going, but we didn't succeed in doing so. Going back for 1 turn was the most logical decision. Why were the players allowed to change previous orders, I don't know. I think it was an error which if I were the host would not do. Of course, it is difficult for a host to control if every division has behaved as in previous turn, but players should have been instructed to repeat done turn. It is common sense. And here you have some legitimacy in your claim.
3) I wieved the files sent to me by Seraphim. So this is the case. Grant's Army was travelling via river transports from StLouis to FtDonelson. It had bombard button on. At the same time Polk Corps was travelling from the region south of StLouis via river transports to Charleston,MO. Both Union fleet and CSA fleet tried to intercept those movements in Kaskaskia confluent. CSA fleet had bombardment button on. Both Polk and Grant evaded enemy fleets who battled each other in Kaskasia confluent. But, in the same turn those fleet battled each other in Kaskaskia confluent, there was a message that Polk river transports and Grant river transports engaged in BigMuddy confluent with battle not happening for the lack of ammo. Maybe the battle started with Grant being the only casualty before the ships disengaged for the lack of ammo, but there lacks definite clear message about it. It is certainly not a clear call, and it should have been investigated, not just replay the turn in question. I imagine Citizen being so upset because of the replay, his further gameplay suffered because of feeling he has been damaged by referee error. I don't think Lindi was biased in this decision. It is 50-50% call difficult to make judgment.
So were are we now, do we act like in professional sports when there is bad referee decision that influenced the game outcome, or do we try to rectify it somehow. In any case, I am against ruling the game to Citizen, and putting Seraphim and Jim out of the tournament. The games are finished, and those complaints should have been resolved when they happened. For example, Hawkeye technology in Tennis can be called only after the point, not after the match. Maybe, Citizen was convinced he would win anyway and didn't want to stall it.
What to do. Do we continue, or do we add more players to the Qs round is the question in the domain of the tournament director. Whatever he does, I am sure he will try to judge as fair as possible and with no biases.
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Ok, as per Citizen's request, I am reviewing the matter.
My basic philosophy is that the game is a big sand box, and if it is technically possible it should be allowed. The only reason to re-run turns is in the event of a technical malfunction.
The river is not restricted by Ky neutrality, so the move is allowed. In reality, it is a bit of a risky move, because the Union force could have landed on a fully garrisoned Donelson IF a defense had been prepared. In the same breath, there has been talk of rangers raiding western forts as a possible exploit. I feel the far west is part of the sand box, the US is capable of recruiting defensive forces in Colorado and elsewhere to protect its forts, and so a CSA player wanting to press the union in the west (or the other way around should be allowed).
So a slip down the river to Donelson while Ky is closed IS ALLOWED. (Prepare your defenses)
This is in the realm of a technical issue. There really are no good ways to handle it. I instructed the game to be played from the last usable turn. This was to minimize any advantage that might be gained from replaying previous turns. I do find it hard to see how the replay in itself would cause one side to have more advantage than the other. The USA may have gotten an insight into the CSA dispositions and intent, but the CSA also benefited from the same effect.
In the future, technical problems resulting in the inability of a turn to be resolved will result in in the game being replayed from the previous usable .hst file.
The question of the missing Grant....
Upon inspection of the turn 19 host file and battle log, (from the union order perspective), the answer is quite clear:
[ATTACH]29751[/ATTACH]
"We mourn the loss of General Grant, who was killed in the battle of Big Muddy Confluent"
Turn 19 experienced no technical problem. General Grant was killed in a freakish battle, that I suppose was caused by two forces who confronted each other while on river transport.
In any event, Grant was legally killed. The turn was inappropriately re-run (and I mean no criticism to Lindi in saying it), and in the second running Grant managed to survive.
Citizen X is correct in saying this likely had a major influence on the game. On turn 19 (accumulate score through 18 turns), Liberty and Citizen were in the lead. Citizen's lead was subsequently eroded thanks to a Grant lead offensive made possible by the re-running of turn 19.
So in consequence of this irregularity, I am going to have the Citizen X and Seraphim match replayed from the valid turn 19 hst. file which includes Grant's death. Turns 1-18 of the match are validated, turns 19-24 need to be replayed.
I am willing to do the hosting duties for these last turns, if this is what the players concerned wish.
This of course could change the qualifications for the next round, so we will have to wait until the conclusion of CitizenX and Seraphim's game to move on. (In any event, we are waiting for the next patch).
My basic philosophy is that the game is a big sand box, and if it is technically possible it should be allowed. The only reason to re-run turns is in the event of a technical malfunction.
Citizen X wrote:
Have a look at turn 14 and the first ruling:
[ATTACH]29749[/ATTACH]
At turn 14 the USA sent Lyons to Ft Donelson through the waters of neutral Kentucky. Quite a surprise for me, as this move was against the houserules in almost all ACW 1 or 2 games I played, naturally to force an attacker to pay at least a political price for this move by taking the "Kentucky card".
So I asked pgr if this move was valid and he confirmed that it was valid. I didn't put forth a discussion here but swallowed the blow. I knew that the game engine allows it and I should have asked in advance, that's why. Still I believe that this houserule is a good one and investing 25 VP into this move with so many advantages for the USA is not asked too much anyway. Note that Nashville and Memphis are both nearly abandoned and I considered them lost but still with the St Louis force and an operateble riverfleet I could make up with it VP wise. Till turn 24 that is.
The river is not restricted by Ky neutrality, so the move is allowed. In reality, it is a bit of a risky move, because the Union force could have landed on a fully garrisoned Donelson IF a defense had been prepared. In the same breath, there has been talk of rangers raiding western forts as a possible exploit. I feel the far west is part of the sand box, the US is capable of recruiting defensive forces in Colorado and elsewhere to protect its forts, and so a CSA player wanting to press the union in the west (or the other way around should be allowed).
So a slip down the river to Donelson while Ky is closed IS ALLOWED. (Prepare your defenses)
Citizen X wrote:Have a look at turn 16 and the second ruling:
[ATTACH]29747[/ATTACH]
Alas, in the worst of moments the game crashed in turn execution and despite all efforts would not go to turn 17. A solution had to be found. There are several possibilties here. I had prefered the game was stalled here. Two thirds were played and an extrapolition of the VPs to be expected could have been done. Also going back 5 to 10 turns to allow for a completly different approach for both parties would have been appropriate. Or, as a third possibilty, going back one turn and force the players to reenact the exact same moves could have been executed. But the host and staff opted for the worst possibilty. Going back one turn with no restrictions. That had several effects.
I was totally stripped off my element of surprise.
The USA learned a whole lot intelligence that they had gained from the corrupted turn 16.
The USA learned that I might be quite mobile in their back and really meant threatening their hinterland
With their strategic transportation potential (that I totally lacked) they were able to come forth with a totally new approach as the rather stupid one they had conducted before.
This is in the realm of a technical issue. There really are no good ways to handle it. I instructed the game to be played from the last usable turn. This was to minimize any advantage that might be gained from replaying previous turns. I do find it hard to see how the replay in itself would cause one side to have more advantage than the other. The USA may have gotten an insight into the CSA dispositions and intent, but the CSA also benefited from the same effect.
In the future, technical problems resulting in the inability of a turn to be resolved will result in in the game being replayed from the previous usable .hst file.
Citizen X wrote:Now comes turn 19:
[ATTACH]29750[/ATTACH]
Look how the USA goes with four divisions into Tennessee, with Johnston still in the off at Missouri, ready to snap Nashville, only they are missing something. Grant is gone. I don't know how that had happened, neither does the US. They demanded a replay. And immediatly got one. No asking me if I approve. No looking at the logs. No asking the staff or the public. No investigation. Just that. They asked and they got. And voila: Grant was back in game. Later successfully attacking Nashville, what may had not been possible without him adding stats. Adding even more VPs to the US and denying them to me. That I still only got short by a slim margin shows how good I had initially started. I think it is here where the match got depreciated. Regardless whether the investigation had shown a bug or not. Not asking my approval alone does it. Also I think that effects are wad unless proven a bug. The developer could have been asked in this case, for instance
The question of the missing Grant....
Upon inspection of the turn 19 host file and battle log, (from the union order perspective), the answer is quite clear:
[ATTACH]29751[/ATTACH]
"We mourn the loss of General Grant, who was killed in the battle of Big Muddy Confluent"
Turn 19 experienced no technical problem. General Grant was killed in a freakish battle, that I suppose was caused by two forces who confronted each other while on river transport.
In any event, Grant was legally killed. The turn was inappropriately re-run (and I mean no criticism to Lindi in saying it), and in the second running Grant managed to survive.
Citizen X is correct in saying this likely had a major influence on the game. On turn 19 (accumulate score through 18 turns), Liberty and Citizen were in the lead. Citizen's lead was subsequently eroded thanks to a Grant lead offensive made possible by the re-running of turn 19.
So in consequence of this irregularity, I am going to have the Citizen X and Seraphim match replayed from the valid turn 19 hst. file which includes Grant's death. Turns 1-18 of the match are validated, turns 19-24 need to be replayed.
I am willing to do the hosting duties for these last turns, if this is what the players concerned wish.
This of course could change the qualifications for the next round, so we will have to wait until the conclusion of CitizenX and Seraphim's game to move on. (In any event, we are waiting for the next patch).
- Attachments
-
My reason :
turn 16 new resolve because hst file is not good, I have no time for watch all move, and all playeur see the game are crashe many try... (after many hours on this many try (on many day) for the game continue I have no time and no energy for watch order.)
Turn 19 : first see, the fight of log 17/24, two I have take one time in fight log when Seraphim ask that for watch If I can see why Grant is dead, never see Grant. The navy ship fight are do in Kaskakia and Grant are dead in other navy area. It's why for me Seraphim said true when I said big bug. But it's ok for me for do a new begin in turn 19.
the log 17/24 :
[ATTACH]29752[/ATTACH]
turn 16 new resolve because hst file is not good, I have no time for watch all move, and all playeur see the game are crashe many try... (after many hours on this many try (on many day) for the game continue I have no time and no energy for watch order.)
Turn 19 : first see, the fight of log 17/24, two I have take one time in fight log when Seraphim ask that for watch If I can see why Grant is dead, never see Grant. The navy ship fight are do in Kaskakia and Grant are dead in other navy area. It's why for me Seraphim said true when I said big bug. But it's ok for me for do a new begin in turn 19.
the log 17/24 :
[ATTACH]29752[/ATTACH]
- Attachments
-
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Just to re-iterate, I have no problem with the decision to replay turn 16, because the host file was corrupted. Lindi did everything he could and resolved the situation in the best way he could.
As for turn 19, the result is very odd...and I can see how it can be considered to be a bug. The main reason is that there was no battle report, like the one in Lindi's previous post, is that the combat forces lacked cohesion to carry on the combat. A battle report was generated for a battle between ASJ and Grant in Hill Mo. Grant was not killed in this battle. Lindi posted the battle report for a naval fight Kaskakia Confluent. Grant was not present.
The answer is in the battle message logs, which details all the nitty-gritty of battles that happened (and didn't). Grant's force was moving by river transport after the battle of Hill, and bumped into Polk's command, also in river transports, in the river at the level of Big Muddy Confluent.
First Polk attacks Grant (CSA Battle Log)
[ATTACH]29754[/ATTACH]
Then Grant is killed, and Mississippi Command lacks cohesion to fight, so no battle results (thus no battle report)
[ATTACH]29755[/ATTACH]
Now I'm not going to get into the details of the math of how this result happened, and I assume the probability of a similar result is very low (which is why if turn 19 was re-run with the same orders the result would likely be different), but it is clear that Grant was not "randomly" lost. It was the result of and interaction in Big Muddy Confluent with Polk's command according to the game's battle resolution logic.
As for turn 19, the result is very odd...and I can see how it can be considered to be a bug. The main reason is that there was no battle report, like the one in Lindi's previous post, is that the combat forces lacked cohesion to carry on the combat. A battle report was generated for a battle between ASJ and Grant in Hill Mo. Grant was not killed in this battle. Lindi posted the battle report for a naval fight Kaskakia Confluent. Grant was not present.
The answer is in the battle message logs, which details all the nitty-gritty of battles that happened (and didn't). Grant's force was moving by river transport after the battle of Hill, and bumped into Polk's command, also in river transports, in the river at the level of Big Muddy Confluent.
First Polk attacks Grant (CSA Battle Log)
[ATTACH]29754[/ATTACH]
Then Grant is killed, and Mississippi Command lacks cohesion to fight, so no battle results (thus no battle report)
[ATTACH]29755[/ATTACH]
Now I'm not going to get into the details of the math of how this result happened, and I assume the probability of a similar result is very low (which is why if turn 19 was re-run with the same orders the result would likely be different), but it is clear that Grant was not "randomly" lost. It was the result of and interaction in Big Muddy Confluent with Polk's command according to the game's battle resolution logic.
- Attachments
-
-
pgr, if you want us to replay turn 19-24, we will.
But to said Grant was legally killed ?
He was not killed in battle : the battle of Kaskaskia before and the bombardment of Western Command (near Saint Louis) after are different things. Grant and his troop are not involved.
And the "battle" of Big Muddy Confluent have no result showed, no retreat or rout for any side, and no casualties except Grant !
I don't mind losing Grant in a battle but show me the battle !
But to said Grant was legally killed ?
He was not killed in battle : the battle of Kaskaskia before and the bombardment of Western Command (near Saint Louis) after are different things. Grant and his troop are not involved.
And the "battle" of Big Muddy Confluent have no result showed, no retreat or rout for any side, and no casualties except Grant !
I don't mind losing Grant in a battle but show me the battle !
I must add that if we replay the game like that, I will have a serious disadvantage.
Grant will be dead and I will have nothing : no victory to celebrate, no defeat to mourn, no CSA's (nor Union's) casualties, no NM or PV change, no disruption of CSA's movements...
Nothing except that I must play without Grant. That will be totally unfair !
I may be a good player but I don't need some handicaps !
Grant will be dead and I will have nothing : no victory to celebrate, no defeat to mourn, no CSA's (nor Union's) casualties, no NM or PV change, no disruption of CSA's movements...
Nothing except that I must play without Grant. That will be totally unfair !
I may be a good player but I don't need some handicaps !
Seraphim wrote:I must add that if we replay the game like that, I will have a serious disadvantage.
Grant will be dead and I will have nothing : no victory to celebrate, no defeat to mourn, no CSA's (nor Union's) casualties, no NM or PV change, no disruption of CSA's movements...
Nothing except that I must play without Grant. That will be totally unfair !
I may be a good player but I don't need some handicaps !
I've lost Grant twice, Lee twice and Jackson once. The only game of the 5 lost was a Lee.
Please don't lose your 'human morale', for then the odds increase against you.
Paul had to make a difficult decision. Everyone needs to respect his decision and support him as we continue with the great tournament Paul and Ace have organized.
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Seraphim wrote:He was not killed in battle : the battle of Kaskaskia before and the bombardment of Western Command (near Saint Louis) after are different things. Grant and his troop are not involved.
You are correct in saying that the Battle of Kaskaskia and the bombardment of Western Command are not involved. But there is a Battle in Big Muddy Confluent.
On the USA side it is evidenced by battle log number 18/24, announcing the death of Grant, and 19/24 "Because of lack of cohesion and strength Mississippi Command stopped its ongoing assault in region Big Muddy Confluent." (this is your "retreat" message) On the CSA side of things (which you couldn't see of course), message 19/24 confirmed that Polk engaged USA in the same location.
It seems that no hits were scored between Polk and Mississippi Command because the latter failed a cohesion check, but it is clear that the two forces had an interaction which resulted in the death of Grant.
Now had Grant been going down the river and wound up in New York...or simply vanished without a trace, then clearly there was an error in turn processing. In this case though, the battle logs clearly indicate that Grant died in an interaction with CSA forces.
Is it shocking and a great bit of good luck for Citizen X? Yes.
Was it an example of an error in turn processing of the same kind that happened in turn 16? No. As the result the first resolution of turn 18 is the one I consider to be the tournament valid outcome. (This is because, even if all orders remain the same, multiple resolutions of the same turn will produce different battle results.)
Now we do have one previous precedent from this tournament of a turn re-run based on an unforeseen outcome. In pool play, a player mistakenly lost a large amount of VP and NM through a seniority penalty in promoting an army leader out of turn. However, in that case the turn was only re-run after the consent of the opposing player. I take it from Citizen's complaint, that he did not consent to re-running turn 18 following Grant's death. This is an additional reason that turn 19 should have proceeded as resolved.
From this point forward, I plan to allow no re-runs except in case of clear technical error. This includes self forced errors, including VP loss due to seniority penalties.
Seraphim, I recognize the loss of Grant makes your life more difficult, but I feel that disqualifying the last 6 turns and having you replay is better than my other option, which would be to advance the left side of the bracket from the last valid turn. (As in to compare the turn 18 scores....which would result in a reversal of the qualifications.) From what I saw of both sides forces while investigating the matter, you still have a very good shot even without Grant.
pgr wrote:Seraphim, I recognize the loss of Grant makes your life more difficult, but I feel that disqualifying the last 6 turns and having you replay is better than my other option, which would be to advance the left side of the bracket from the last valid turn. (As in to compare the turn 18 scores....which would result in a reversal of the qualifications.) From what I saw of both sides forces while investigating the matter, you still have a very good shot even without Grant.
For me it doesn't matter : beginning turn 19 (with Grant dead) 884 PV vs 841 for Liberty Bell.
For Citizen X you can just proclaim him victorious : if he didn't make the mistake of spending 25 PV in partisans in turn 20 (or something) he would have top Jim_NC regardless of my actions. Yes : I'm not the one who truly defeated CX.
As CX will not make the same mistake twice the fate of Jim_NC is already known.
"Stopped its ongoing assault" is pretty common and has always shown a battle and some casualties. As I understand it, it means that one side had fought but had been forced to stop the fight after some time because of exhaustion.
Exhausted troops can also refuse to attack but it was always before any action take place (and no action take place actually). Retreat can also mean no casualties but then again no action take place.
Here we are not in any of this 3 possibility : a battle that started but there were no fighting action but one of the commanding general died. Despite that there wasn't any offensive action (no casualties), the troops stop the fighting because there are tired (I said it again : so far exhausted troops before a battle did not engage combat at all). There is no result for this battle, no retreat, no rout, nothing.
Illogical at best !
What I think : the game began a battle because two opposing force were in the same region. But it was in the middle of the Mississippi and the game couldn't resolve such a battle between two land forces (no ships here). So the game didn't resolve the battle (no hits were scored, no army withdraw, etc...) but the part of the program that control the death of the leaders thinking that there had been a battle killed Grant.
For me it is a technical error and the re-run was the good thing to do.
Pgr, if you insist for a replay I will do it. But it's my time to strongly protest !
-
Liberty Bell
- Captain
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:34 pm
- Location: Gothia
soundoff wrote:I've followed your tournament with much interest but in truth probably have little right to comment - particularly as I did not foresee such a problem arising. However it has.....and what a whopper it is. Sorry to say Ace but I don't think its possible to simply admit the error and attempt to move on .......not without destroying the integrity of the tournament you and others have worked so hard to develop. If you do then whoever wins will be unable to claim that the victory was fair. I have no idea how but it just seems to me, if justice is to prevail that there has to be some way of accommodating the disadvantaged losers into your next round.
Best of luck as you will need the wisdom of Solomon on this one
Did anyone notice that Ace and our tournament got a comment some time ago? No one commented or answered it.
Instead our discussion was about “was the bombardment button pressed?” or “what we think they were thinking when the code was written? ”. Then all was about bugs and house rules, we didn’t have.
Soundoff made an experienced and well-meant remark and he made a polite hint of the best solution. If we first “admit an error we simply can’t attempt to go on”. As Ace honestly wrote … “Seraphim was very much privileged by knowing your score tally, he knew he should push to catch you up and that information has resulted in more bloody match earning him higher score.”
I think we made a double fault by not discussing this error and a new error not to learn from Soundoff when he gave us good advice to correct this error. As he said, “not without destroying the integrity of the tournament”.
When I read the latest posts here it’s all again about playing against a Victory Point Target, read Liberty Bells final score. This was not OK the first time and will not be OK in the new replay. Pgr to Seraphim ..
“having you replay is better than my other option, which would be to advance the left side of the bracket from the last valid turn. (As in to compare the turn 18 scores....which would result in a reversal of the qualifications.) From what I saw of both sides forces while investigating the matter, you still have a very good shot even without Grant.” ... to beat the demon
So what I suggest is what Soundoff says. We got a big problem (”what a whopper”) when we made the Victory Points Targets. This is still our systematical problem and we have to find “the wisdom of Solomon” as Soundoff put it. But he also gave us the solution “if justice is to prevail that there has to be some way of accommodating the disadvantaged losers into your next round”.
I would be very happy to stay in this great tournament, but not as a result of a second Victory Point Target game or replay. We made a double fault, let it not be a triple fault.
But if you want to get rid of the Liberty Bell “demon”, real fast, I can honestly say, that I prefer that you declare Seraphim winner without a replay against the demonic Victory Point Target of Liberty Bell (with or without Grant).
Let’s kill those Victory Points Targets once and for all and …
Let’s keep the integrity of this fine tournament living.
My turn again: )
I said from the beginning that I wanted this being a future discussion, rather than a present discussion. Therefore I have said right from the start that Jim might go to the finals in any case, regardless of outcome. That was to get the personal interest out as best I could.
In this regard case 1 is closed in my eyes. Kentucky waters can be shipped henceforth (although I think that it favours the US a bit but anyway ... ). I only recommend to write it into the books to make it clear for newcomers.
Case 3 (Grant): I think that it is the result of an odd programm behaviour maybe but still no bug. I tend to the opinion that in such cases no rerun should take place, as I said before. I am playing the turns if the ruling stands, to make this as fair for everybody as possible.
I think we also learned, that results should not be made public before they are all in. (Remenber that in the beginning of the tornament I recommended not to publicate any progress at all? )
The least discussed here is actually the one that concerns me most, case 2. I still don't think that in case of real programm crashes it is enough to simply go back one turn without any restrictions, like obligating to the original orders. I think I made very good points why this should not happen. I understand that people are more concerned with the Grant thingie, but the real future issue lies elsewhere.
I said from the beginning that I wanted this being a future discussion, rather than a present discussion. Therefore I have said right from the start that Jim might go to the finals in any case, regardless of outcome. That was to get the personal interest out as best I could.
In this regard case 1 is closed in my eyes. Kentucky waters can be shipped henceforth (although I think that it favours the US a bit but anyway ...
). I only recommend to write it into the books to make it clear for newcomers.Case 3 (Grant): I think that it is the result of an odd programm behaviour maybe but still no bug. I tend to the opinion that in such cases no rerun should take place, as I said before. I am playing the turns if the ruling stands, to make this as fair for everybody as possible.
I think we also learned, that results should not be made public before they are all in. (Remenber that in the beginning of the tornament I recommended not to publicate any progress at all?
)The least discussed here is actually the one that concerns me most, case 2. I still don't think that in case of real programm crashes it is enough to simply go back one turn without any restrictions, like obligating to the original orders. I think I made very good points why this should not happen. I understand that people are more concerned with the Grant thingie, but the real future issue lies elsewhere.
"I am here already.", said the hedgehog to the hare.
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Citizen X wrote:My turn again: )
I said from the beginning that I wanted this being a future discussion, rather than a present discussion. Therefore I have said right from the start that Jim might go to the finals in any case, regardless of outcome. That was to get the personal interest out as best I could.
Just to be clear here Citizen X, are you declining the option of replaying the last 6 turns? If this is the case, I will validate the game as played and we will all just move on.
As for crash procedure, if a new host file is corrupted or will not process to the next turn, the host should go into the backup files and re-run the previous turn using the previously submitted ord files. There should be as little re-playing (as in players re-issuing orders for already played turns) as possible.
Citizen X, please do let me know if you intend to accept to replay the last 6 turns of your previous match, considering it was your request for an "an arbitral award" that resulted in my reviewing the situation and making the decision posted above.
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Liberty Bell wrote:Did anyone notice that Ace and our tournament got a comment some time ago? No one commented or answered it.
With all due respect to Soundoff, he is not a tournament participant. If memory served, he declined to participate. He is more than welcome to follow along the results as they are posted. However, he is poorly placed to influence tournament rules or judge "the integrity of the tournament."
Liberty Bell wrote:
I would be very happy to stay in this great tournament, but not as a result of a second Victory Point Target game or replay. We made a double fault, let it not be a triple fault.
Liberty, there is no such thing as a "Victory Point Target." There is the score in VP that each player generates over the course of a match. Before games started, the scoring procedure was made very clear. The highest CSA and USA score on each side of the bracket will advance.
Did the fact that your game finished before Sara/Citiz's game put you at a disadvantage? Perhaps, but no more so than any competition in a tournament format. In the World Cup, other teams know the scores of other finished matches, and play with the knowledge of what score they must achieve to advance. There is no tournament I know of where all participants play in complete ignorance of the results of other matches, or where no results are published until the end of the tournament.
Since your game finished first, your score and Jim-NC's score became the respective USA and CSA scores to beat. This doesn't mean that they would be beat. Indeed, despite the fact that you finished first, despite the fact that the play styles in the games seemed quite different (esp in terms of causalities) the final results of both games were essentially the same. (Within 25 vp of each other....the price of war bonds).
The ONLY event that I feel unfairly impacted the integrity of this round was the resurrection of General Grant that has received so much discussion above.
Return to “PBEM and multiplayer matchups (all games)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests