Mirror Battles

[Bertram]

Now that I am gratefully playing in my first tournament of any kind, anywhere, I already have a comment. Playing exact duplicate mirror battles takes away from some of the appeal of CM, FOW. I know it's done in the name of fairness but maybe we should risk total fairness for a little mystery. Presently, it's much like a board game where you know all the units and starting positions, differing strategies are all that separates the games.

It would be more work due to increased play testing and that's an issue too.

I'm still going to have fun and I am ready to get in the next tournament but I guess there is always room to tweak improvements. Thank you for all your hard work!!

[Neilm85uk]

Hi John,

I'm in the midst of this very conversation during the same tourney. I think there's two ways to go about it and this one's gone for 'ultimate' fairness. The next may go the other way for the mystery that I think we'd both prefer. It is twice the work to provide both. However, Dan has gone to alot of trouble to run this and I am delighted to be a part of it. When it's done I'm thinking of trying to set up a CMBB tourney which will err on the side of mystery. I'm trying to garner suitable scenarios at the moment!

Cheers
N.

[2054172]

That you guys are going to take on the task of running and/or making tourneys. i know Palantir is greatful that we all are taking active roles in this forum. This will be building blocks to a great fellowship of gamers.:smoke:

[TacCovert4]

I have to ask:

For the remaining 4 Battles of the tourney, would you all rather me err towards mystery or fairness?

It wouldn't be hard to just send the start file to 1 player and hope that the force mixxes are safe enough, but for some of these battles, there is a high chance of a guaranteed Axis overwhelming victory, due to the types of forces involved.

[Cherper]

I would prefer not to play mirror battles. It just seems to lose something.

[TacCovert4]

Or for the fairness, would mirroring the battles randomly help? To explain: Instead of having players 1 & 2 playing battle 2 from each side, make them play the battles in a random order, with neither of them playing a mirrored battle simultaneously. If the randomization is good enough, and the players are honorable enough not to look at the previous games for insights, you keep the inherent fairness of mirrored games, with more of the mystery of random games.

Say:

Player 1 is playing Battle 2 and Player 2 battle 4.

then:

p1:3

p2:5

then:

p1:4

p2:2

then:

p1:5

p2:3


At the end of the tourney, one could easily couple the games together for the total scoring.

[TacCovert4]

If this is a bad idea, I'll just set it up so that everyone has a similar chance of getting an equal number of attacks, and defends. I can't guarantee total fairness, but the prizes for winning aren't exactly life changing.

[Cherper]

I don't mind the second method, of the mirrored games, but overall, I don't mind taking my chances playing just one side once.

[Palantir]

This is a very old debate and one that has been discussed repeatedly before every tourney starts or just after one gets underway it seems.
There are good & bad points to all methods.

The problem with not running designed "mirored" vs "oneside only" is that if:
The scenario in question, just for ex, we'll call it #1, is not playtested & is unbalanced oneside will lose for "certain"- suppose that happens in scenario #2 and #3 the same guy who had the lossing side in #1 now loses in #2 etc because of the scenario, etc etc. Is it his fault he lost? If it's a ladder tourney game some players have taken big hits due to no fault of their own.

The advantage of playing designed scenarios mirrored is this- it comes down to which player has the better game tactics under the same circumstances. Sure one side may still seem to be unbalanced but it is EQUAL opportunity for both players.

I design a lot of tourney scenarios that playtested out as "balanced" but can "seem" unbalanced in mirrored play just for the reason state: there is no mystery. Players know everything about both sides. However, the games are FAIR to players overall since they have the exact same circumstances to play with.


If the randomization is good enough, and the players are honorable enough not to look at the previous games for insights, you keep the inherent fairness of mirrored games, with more of the mystery of random games.

You are asking for bigger problems here then you know...

EX. Say a player who played Side #1 in the first scenario = knows Side 1's setup plus knows its big reinforcements enter at X spot about X turn is going to totally ignore that information when he plays that scenario from Side 2's perspective later? That puts his opponent at a HUGE disadvantage. The first player to play a scenario has a good feel for the pacing of the game, unit abilities etc. Asking him to play as if he knows nothing about that scenario is asking for trouble.

It's just easier on everyone to just play a scenario mirrored and keep both games running at the same turn in each.

You can run them in "3 Player POD" form to alter the playing style:
Side 1 vs Side 2
Player 1 vs Player 2
Player 2 vs Player 3
Player 3 vs Player 1

But this method does require everyone to keep up the same pace/game turn.