hmm A question!

[ER_Chaser]

on ladder reports for QBs.

I suddenly noticed that for scenarios, the total purchase points were the SUM of both sides' pps.

Yet, when entering for total pp's for QB, I have always used the BASE pps. i.e., for a 3000pts ME mission, actually total for two sides should be 6000. For 3000pts Attack, it would 7500 total. And so on so forth. What is the correct point count then?
(I think that affects my ladder total points greatly, because almost all my games were QBs.)

Thanks.

[KG_Norad]

Yikes...That is how I have entered them too! We will have to look into this...

Thanks ER :confused: :scream:

[Doctor Sinister]

Oops. Me too. (but only two games for me - so no biggie...).

Dr. S.

[ER_Chaser]

well, that is still a lot to you, Doc --- proportionalwise ---- it is always a factor of 2 or more.

Mike, actually I believe this is the common problem for EVERY player with QBs. Since on the setup screen of CMBB, there is explicitly a number called "purchase points" which refered to the basic points. This is also the convention for people to call for games. Thus I believe everyone reported their QBs that way.

This isn't really bad. Because the way we solve it will be extremely simple: let us keep doing it this way for reports. The only change is to add a factor for QBs in the scoring part. Fortunately for CM, QBs are reported separately from scenarios, so it is extremely easy to track all the QBs(including past). Then the mission type was also specified in the reports, so it is straightforward to multiply ME mission with 2, probe with 2.25, attack with 2.5, assault with 2.8 to get the accurate point count. We do not even need to bother to warn the players at all.

[KG_Norad]

Good ideas to be sure. I will have to talk to WestPointer our Ladder Master to get his feed back on this. Thanks again for your input. If anything else comes to mind please post it!

[ER_Chaser]

Thanks, Mike... I think Brent must now get a headache on hearing "ER C..." .. :D ever since I started to play around with WARS, I have been bothering him with loads of things ... LoL

[CyberRanger]

Thanks, Mike... I think Brent must now get a headache on hearing "ER C..." .. :D ever since I started to play around with WARS, I have been bothering him with loads of things ... LoL
I appreciate the feedback ... really!

I'll look at this but not for a few days; I need to finish another project first. ;)

[ER_Chaser]

Thank you Brent, you are the MAN! :)

[CyberRanger]

well, that is still a lot to you, Doc --- proportionalwise ---- it is always a factor of 2 or more.

Mike, actually I believe this is the common problem for EVERY player with QBs. Since on the setup screen of CMBB, there is explicitly a number called "purchase points" which refered to the basic points. This is also the convention for people to call for games. Thus I believe everyone reported their QBs that way.

This isn't really bad. Because the way we solve it will be extremely simple: let us keep doing it this way for reports. The only change is to add a factor for QBs in the scoring part. Fortunately for CM, QBs are reported separately from scenarios, so it is extremely easy to track all the QBs(including past). Then the mission type was also specified in the reports, so it is straightforward to multiply ME mission with 2, probe with 2.25, attack with 2.5, assault with 2.8 to get the accurate point count. We do not even need to bother to warn the players at all.

Michael and I have been discussing this behind the scenes. I think I have a good understanding now of the issue and what to do. Basically, I'm going to use the "complexity" field that we have for TOAW and use that concept for QB's. Players will enter the purchase points that are reported to them. That number will then be multiplied by the values ER Chaser has stated above. Sound good?

[ER_Chaser]

Cool... :) Just remember to set the "complexity" for *Scenarios* as 1 then. Thanks a lot, Brent!

[KG_Norad]

There is no real complexity indicator...so I am confused about what we would use this for???

CM doles out points based on Battle type and base points.

[ER_Chaser]

Mike, what Brent meant was that he "borrows" the parameter he set up for TOAW ladders, "complexity" for this factor. Because all what the "complexity" does in TOAW ladder (CURRENTLY) is to multiply the "raw scores" to the final scores.

Well, one little bit concern to the future, Brent, I remember you plan to use this complexity for "ratings" as well. In that case, you will then have to factor it out again for CM games. Careful :)

[CyberRanger]

Mike, what Brent meant was that he "borrows" the parameter he set up for TOAW ladders, "complexity" for this factor. Because all what the "complexity" does in TOAW ladder (CURRENTLY) is to multiply the "raw scores" to the final scores.

Well, one little bit concern to the future, Brent, I remember you plan to use this complexity for "ratings" as well. In that case, you will then have to factor it out again for CM games. Careful :)

Correct ... and finally done. New quick battle reports will now be multiplied by a factor:

ME - 2
Probe - 2.25
Attack - 2.5
Assault - 2.8


I'll try to convert previous WARS reports ASAP.

To see an example of a before and after, look at the first two entries here on our test server. (http://www.armchairhq.com/forum/wfhq-ld-ladder-games.php?ladder=Combat+Missions&limitstart=0)

[KG_Norad]

I noticed a few Scenarios mixed in with the quick battles. Is the test forum set to show both? Because this calculation should only effect the QB's.

[Palantir]

Damn the points man!!!:nofear:

Full speed ahead I say! :horse:

As long as it is a fair system to everyone... :toast:

[Fionn]

I'm sorry but I don't see what has been gained by adding this "complexity factor" to game reports.


Couple of points:
1. If you are trying to model the fact that a defender who loses with a score of 30% vs an assault has done much better than a defender who loses with a score of 30% vs an assault then the 2.8 multiplier must be different for attacker and defender and be inversely related to the initial point disparity.

2. OTOH if you're just multiplying by a multiplier based on the type of game doesn't that mean that a player who plays a large number of LARGE ( thus high point) ASSAULT games can achieve a very high score in a small number of games? Assuming he plays as the attacker and wins these games easily. OTOH if he plays as the attacker he SHOULD win these games very easily since he'll have a massive force imbalance and the Lanchester Square Law (which is applicable to CM although with some obvious caveats) will be entirely in his favour.

I may be missing something but it seems to me that what you're doing will open things up to even more abuses.

[KG_Norad]

The idea is supposed to be this:
Based on the way the ladder is set up currently you get more points for pre-made scenarios then you do for quick battles.

When we enter a scenario onto the ladder we opened up each one to get the exact purchase points used for BOTH sides to determine the purchase points. So if 1989 was spent on axis units and 1501 were spent on allied units you have a base of 3490. For scoring it does not matter which side has which just the total combined #. This combined # was then factored by the victory level achieved and points given accordingly.

For Quick Battles due to how they are portrayed have only been reporting half the points. A 2000 point QB for example is in actuality about a 4000 total point battle. Since only half of the points are being reported, people are getting less pts on the ladder.

The multiplyer that WP is putting into place is to auto calculate the base points using the multiplyer that CM uses when doleing out purchase points based on the type of QB being played. This way we will not have to change how QB's are reported, and we will be able to update all of the current games on the ladder.

I hope this makes sense because this is supposed to be the reasoning behind this... :nuts: :shock:

[ER_Chaser]

hehe... now I can expect my points beating James :D

[CyberRanger]

I noticed a few Scenarios mixed in with the quick battles. Is the test forum set to show both? Because this calculation should only effect the QB's.

Correct ... it is a mix of scenarios and QB's but only QB's are effected.

[CyberRanger]

Lanchester Square Law
Okay, I don't feel like googling it ... so what is it? :nuts:

[KG_AGCent]

Okay, I don't feel like googling it ... so what is it? :nuts:
It is here, in all its glorious length, breadth and minutiae.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR638/index.html

[Fionn]

Ah, ok I getcha.

Its still open to exploitation but I suppose if anyone is stupid enough to engage in a game in which an opponent of equal skill gets double their points they deserve everything they get ;)

So, what you're really doing is bringing the two types of PBEM into equality vis a vis ladder reports whilst not taking into account the attacker/defender points disparity in any way... which is open to abuse but reasonably fair IMO since part of the game is learning when some shyster is trying to sucker u into an unfair setup

It still seems though that someone playing 50 large games ( 5000 points each) is going to end up with far more points than someone playing 50 small games ( 1000 points each) even if they both win the same number of games... Is this correct?



P.s. Lanchester Law... Basically it means that whatever the ratio of your points/numerical advantage is then assuming all combat units are of equal capability the ratio of your combat superiority to that of your enemy is the SQUARE of that ratio.

Since, in CM, the unit points are supposed to represent general purpose capability (such that 2000 points spent on a Tiger = 2000 points spent on some Churchills, PIATs and 6 lbers etc) in an "average" combination of weather, terrain, mission and force composition a force with TWICE the points will be able to attrit its enemy at four times the rate at which it, itself, loses units.

IOW... You face two 1000 point forces off against eachother across an open CM plain. Both forces will, in a given unit of time, inflict the same damage on eachother. The end result will be mutual destruction.

OTOH a force comprising 2000 points vs a force comprising 1000 points will inflict 4 times more damage on the smaller force per unit time ( assuming the unit time is some reasonable time increment giving the larger force the ability to fire multiple shots).

Here's how it works. Let's assume a tank costs 100 points. Each tank has a 20% chance of killing an enemy tank every 10 seconds ( the time taken to aim and fire one shot).

So, in the first exchange side A ( 10 tanks) kills 2 of Side B's tanks. Side B ( 20 tanks since the 2 killed tanks managed to fire before they were hit since all firing occurs simultaneously) kills 4 of Side As.

Round 2: The 6 remaining tanks in Side A kill 1 of Side B's tanks. Side B's 18 tanks shoot and kill 4 (rounded up) of Side A's tanks.

Round 3: Side A's 2 remaining tanks fire and achieve no kills ( 0.4 hits). Side B's 17 remaining tanks fire and kill the remaining Side A tanks.


End result, Side A loses 10 tanks. Side B loses 3. So by doubling the points you more than halve the losses ( which is the same as saying you more than double the kill rate of enemy units). In fact you increase the kill rate by 3.33.

Actually, to be fully accurate you increase the kill rate by 3.7 since the fact that the 17 Side B tanks ( comprising 1700 points) could kill 3.4 enemy tanks (340 points per turn) and there are only two Side A tanks ( 200 points on the board) means ( in mathematical terms) that it should only take them 59% of the turn to kill the 200 points those two tanks represent. As such it only takes Side B 2.6 turns to remove the enemy force which yields a 3.7-fold increase in kill rate ( kills per unit time) since a 1000 point vs 1000 point game would take 10 turns to end.

The basic principle behind the Lanchester Square Law is the reason why even small incremental increases in firepower concentration achieve major results once a particular threshold is reached.


If anyone's interested in checking it out for themselves then I suggest they look at the Battle of Trafalgar and the division of Nelson's fleet and apply the Lanchester Square Law to this force division. You will find that doing so proves, incontrevertibly that Nelson's division of his fleet according to the Lanchester Law so its not a purely theoretical thing. It appears Nelson used it to figure out precisely how to divide his ships on that day.



P.s. Obviously the example given above is very simplified and the terminology I use is incorrect. Kill rate should really be "the force kill co-efficient" etc etc. Still, I think it explains the basic point. If anyone wants any further info just ask.

FWIW: This is why there's so much larger a difference than one would expect between the 1.5 ratio between attacker and defender and the 1.6 ratio which was initially supposed to be implemented. It is NOT a 6.7% increase in combat power, it is pretty much a 16% increase in combat power.

[KG_Norad]

Fionn...Where the heck have you been hiding and why haven't you been around earlier?

Second yes, someone playing larger scenarios with more combined purchase points will get more points on the ladder. The reasoning is to make up for lack of a true complexity rating. Generally speaking a person playing a 10,000 pt scenario vs a 2000 pt scenario is usually spending more time with more units in a more complex situation. True some grey area exists with this but I think it is a good general rule of thumb.

[Fionn]

NORAD,
Thanks. Just wanted to be sure you guys were aware of the possible exploits. I take and agree with your point re: the difficulty of dealing with a Regt(-) size force as opposed to dealing with a reinforced company though.


As to me not being around. I was. I just decided about 18 months ago to take a break from wargaming. I actually happened across these forums a few days ago when searching for a pirates 2 preview, got interested in the preamble to that tourney and decided to re-up and post. Strange how life works.

[CyberRanger]

I'll try to convert previous WARS reports ASAP.


Done! Here is a listing of how the points changed (http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=combat_mission/ConvertPointsforCMQB.htm) by game report.

[ER_Chaser]

COOL! LOL ... not even a single extra game reported for me, yet, I gain one extra star by this change and my all around rank jumped from the 7th to the 3rd and only 200pts to beat HEAT down :banana: :banana:

hohoh...

hey, here is Lt. Gen ER Chaser! :laugh:

[ER_Chaser]

Oh, forgot to thank Brent for this! ;) ... hehe.. my next task is to bring Scipio down from the top of CM ladder. ... well, that is tough, I am still 1400 + points short! :p ... hmm.... Let me figure ..