Samurai Warlords IX

[Tomisama]

Samurai Mod - Multiplayer Mini Campaign IX

Samurai Warlords Battle for Cmielnik Province.

This Sunday July 23rd 2006 at 18:00 GMT (7 pm BST UK – 2 pm EDT US).

The map for all Matches is to be fought on (fl)_O_Cmielnik .


Requires MTW/VI 2.01 and STW_Mod_BETA5 with samuraiwars_v10b stats.

All Battles played at 10k, all realism settings on, default unit size, with no time limit, and corner camping is expressly prohibited.

No specified Attacker/Defender roles, and no private agreements on rules are allowed.

Lordship will be won by the Contestant with Best Total Kill score, minus their Total Losses.


Good Luck and Have Fun All :grin:

Everyone is Welcome!

:charge:

As the Campaign stands:

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/warlordmap.html

[Tomisama]

To much competition with the World Cup this week, so will bump this up to next weekend :2thumbsup:

Changed from the 9th to the 16th.

[Tomisama]

Going to bump this, and change the start time to 18:00 hours to give folks in Europe a chance to get in more than one game.

18:00 hours or 6 PM GMT

8 PM in Germany and Italy
7 PM in United Kingdom
2 PM in New York
1 PM in Chicago
12 PM in Denver

(all on daylight savings time)

This map will be more challenging for some, so be ready to be creative :smile:

[Tomisama]

Would someone please post or PM me the results of all of today’s games.

Thanks in advance :smile:

[CBR]

Wouldnt it be better just to forget about today and have IX played next week? But I can send you results if you want it.


CBR

[R'as al Ghul]

Wouldnt it be better just to forget about today and have IX played next week? But I can send you results if you want it.


CBR

Since my performance was a disgrace, I'm quite in favor of this idea. :wink:

Perhaps we can also sort out some tech difficulties till then.
It seemed my machine was lagging heavily.
I think I have to turn down some grafix settings.

[Puzz3D]

The one battle that was played later in the day was not played on (fL)_storm_coldykoth, and the earlier battle that was played went out of sync. So, I would say reschedule the event.

[L'Impresario]

These 2-3 last weeks were quite hard for me due to exams and such, but from now on I'm quite positive that I'll be able to catch these games, at least till the end of July (I guess).
So better get prepared, as some Mizu heads will start wriggling again;)

[Tomisama]

The one battle that was played later in the day was not played on (fL)_storm_coldykoth, and the earlier battle that was played went out of sync. So, I would say reschedule the event.

I see, ok.

But we did have some new Samurai Warriors playing, Mitch and George maybe? Who else was able to join in? I would like to add their names to the Contest Map, and hope that they will continue to participate :grin:

I am working with Microsoft to solve my problem, which was much bigger than I thought (involving more than just affected the game).

Have a great week :bow:

P.S. Advanced date to the 23rd (see you there Alex :grin: )

[Puzz3D]

ShingenMitch and Hunter_KingGeorge played.

[Hunter KIng George]

I will be there more often...especially with the new earlier time of 18gmt. Will give me some time to play a few. :2thumbsup: Seems popularity is finally growing for this well deserved mod!

[Puzz3D]

Tomi,

We should get together before the next event and make sure your STWmod is working.

[Tomisama]

Tomi,

We should get together before the next event and make sure your STWmod is working.I believe all problems are solved (there were possibly four). But welcome a test, and will check for you online evenings, as I can. Thanks!

And Yuuki would you please explain a bit about “strictserver”. Who should have it added, how to do that, and what it does.
Thanks in advance :wink:

Example (if I have done it correctly):
Medieval - Total War - Viking Invasion - STW mod\Medieval_TW.EXE" –strictserver


I will be there more often...especially with the new earlier time of 18gmt.
And "you go" George :charge: great to have you with us!

If you want to come even earlier, we can have a warm up practice game starting at 17:00 (all are invited) :yes:

[Puzz3D]

"Medieval - Total War - Viking Invasion - STW mod\Medieval_TW.EXE" –strictserver
Yes that's right for the target line in the shortcut that starts the game. The path to the exe might be different for different installations, but after the trailing " you leave a space and put -strictserver.

What this does is cause your game's state to be checked against the host's game state throughout the battle. At a minimum it checks the number of men still alive in the battle, and might check even more than that. If a difference is found between your game state and the host's game state, you are out-of-sync and disconnected from the battle. If you are the host, then everyone will be dropped. Without -strictserver you won't be dropped if you go out-of-sync, but your battle will eventually diverge dramatically from what other players are seeing on their machines.

[Tomisama]

Adding " -strictserver" is a must.

The results of it not being there can be very dramatic.

Last weekend I was enjoying pulling victory from the jaws of defeat, until I found out I was the only one who saw that particular battle.

What a shame (I was doing so well :tongue: ).

Don’t let this happen to you :no:

[Tomisama]

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/images/warlordmap1.jpg

[CBR]

Oh and IMO I dont find the map for this round to be that good. Defending side cant attack because of the big ridge in front of them so they are forced to deploy at the rear. I find it to be a waste of large size map.


CBR

[Tomisama]

The Emperor’s old Map Maker has been sent to visit his ancestors :bow:

The new Map Maker has re-designated the Province West of Realm as Cmielnik.

The Battle for this next encounter will be fought on (fl)_O_Cmielnik, and as Arid terrain.

:charge:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't think I'm going to be able to make this one, either - working on taking up some rugs in my house tomorrow. :wall: Maybe I can get on, though...

One of these days I'll make it. :sweatdrop:

[shogun888]

think i can make it

[Tomisama]

Edit:THIS STATEMENT IS IN ERROR – VERY SORRY - PLEASE SEE MY NEXT POST

We managed 2 Battles today, one 4v4 and one 2v2.

In both Battles the high score (minus losses) winner was the same.

Today’s Generalship award goes to Demonic-DeathRider, a first time player in our Samurai Wars Competition.

Congratulations Lord DeathRider, master of Cmielnik Province :bow:

(Map update coming soon.)

[L'Impresario]

Good games tonight, although it was a 3v3, not a 4v4;)

BTW, I thought that Cain had the high score, not?

[R'as al Ghul]

:hide:
Erm, apologies for last nights out-of-sync errors.
Well, I'm not entirely sure if it was me causing them but I do think so.
The positive side is that a whole system check revealed nothing suspicious.
However, my gamefolder is a whopping 3.5 Gb large, opposed to the 2.1 of the
vanilla install. :smile:
Could be causing problems. I've also changed something in names.txt (inserted more factions) that could cause problems. I must say that all the past months I've played with versions that were different from yours, but since most of it concerned graphics it didn't matter. Seems that I am now at a point where the versions divert too much.
I've now made a fresh install of M:TW-VI and STWmod from Yuuki's sig.
I just hope that will solve the issues since my network settings are alright and contrary to public belief my machine is fully capable of running the game. :wink:
I'll see if I catch somebody this week to run a test.

:bow:

[Puzz3D]

BTW, I thought that Cain had the high score, not?
Winner is now determined by kills - losses. I didn't see the score of the second game. It's pretty interesting that Demonic-DeathRider won both games when it was his first time playing STWmod.

I think we have to improve on the number of games played in a session to maintain interest in Samurai Wars.

[L'Impresario]

Well, he lost in the second game with Tomi vs me and Cain. Cain had 988 kills and 527 losses. In the first game Demonic DeathRider had 789-380 and in the second 510-765.

BTW, I don't think there is a logical way to determine who "deserves" the award, at least by using stats. Not that it's something to overly worry about. Maybe the one winning should be the one with most men alive. So that players with numerous cav don't get a somehow unfair advantage in big games. Or if you wan't to complicate it even more, try CWB score, based on the value of the surviving men heh

[Tomisama]

Good games tonight, although it was a 3v3, not a 4v4;)

BTW, I thought that Cain had the high score, not?
Yes, absolutely right. Major error on my part. The Emperor will no doubt cut my pay (or something else :skull: ).

My supreme apologies to all concerned. The Province goes to Lord Saint-Cain, the High Scorer in the second game.

DeathRider was the highest scorer in the first game (started as a 4v4, dropped to a 3v3), with 789 minus 380 for a 409. But Cain did better with 988 minus 527 for a score of 461 in the second game.

I believe Rider will have his day, but for now

Saint-Cain is the Supreme Lord of Cmielnik Province.


More on scoring later. I want to get this posted before I get more angry letters :sad:

[Tomisama]

BTW, I don't think there is a logical way to determine who "deserves" the award, at least by using stats. Not that it's something to overly worry about. Maybe the one winning should be the one with most men alive. So that players with numerous cav don't get a somehow unfair advantage in big games. Or if you wan't to complicate it even more, try CWB score, based on the value of the surviving men heh
To get a high kill score “with” a limited number of losses, in comparison to others on the same map, demonstrates at least a certain level of skill. I doubt that this combo scoring method can be won by accident (or I would have won one already :tongue: ).

And that is all the Emperor wants at this point. The Provinces are awarded to proven skilled warriors, rather than passed out arbitrarily. The purpose is to be sure that all Imperial Territories have worthy military leadership to protect them.

Once all of the Provinces have Lords, the nature of the Contest will change, as there will no longer be any more chances to gain property, except to take it from another Lord.

Then we will move to challenges of Clan vs. Clan for control of the land won by their respective members.

That is the vision anyway :wink:


Edit: P.S. If your Clan has not yet chosen a symbol to represent their unity, please PM R'as al Ghul for instructions and link to possible choices.

Sorry you didn’t get to play this last weekend R’as :cry:

[Puzz3D]

The lag Ras was experiencing on battle loading may well go away once he reverts to a standard beta 5 install.

[L'Impresario]

Regarding the high score system, I still believe that having a score based on *your* and not the opponent's is technically better, because it reduces the effect game size has. Therefore, whether you're playing 2v2 or 4v4, your army contains a certain number of men and is a more comparable measuring medium. After all in 4v4 you got about 720 more possible kills to hunt than 3v3, and 1440 more than 2v2. Your army's size remains the same.
The bad thing is that some players bearing the brunt of an initial attack/defense will have less chances to win with such a rule, but their chances with the existing ones are really low anyway, unless they have cav reserves.

PS. Cain's org username is SaintBlackAdder, for nice shiny badge purproses heh

[Puzz3D]

After all in 4v4 you got about 720 more possible kills to hunt than 3v3, and 1440 more than 2v2. Your army's size remains the same.
True, but you have more allies in the bigger games that are going to reduce those possible kills for the high scorer. For example, Cain got a larger kill differential in the 2v2 than DeathRider did in the 3v3. Their kill - losses scores weren't actually much different. DeathRider was able to win the battle, but he was helped by the good kills his allies got. Those allied kills reduced his potential kill differential, but allowed him to prevail otherwise he may have been routed with much higher losses eliminating his chance to come out with the highest kill differential in that game. Tomi had a good chance to come out on top in this game, but his ally facing DeathRider didn't damage Death enough for Tomi to rout him. A more coordinated attack on Death may have worked better.

When I got my high kills in a 3v3 a few weeks ago, I never engaged the 3rd player and I had over 1100 differential. The main reason I got those kills was that the second enemy army came over to help his ally but got there late, and Tomi hit him from behind just in time for me to hold otherwise I would have been beaten by that second army. So it was team effort, but only one player is getting designated as winner. I think players who have a somewhat aggressive play style are more likely to get the high score, although that doesn't necessarily mean to be the first to attack.

[L'Impresario]

There is a difference here: In a 2v2 (and this is even more pronounced in a 1v1) you usually engage over a limited front where most "kills" are indeed kills and not captures, while at the same time you 're more likely to get a less decisive win due to less "outside" factors -eg allied cav- that can affect the various match-ups. Even if the winner gets a clear victory, his "killing potential" will be limited by his ability to not to rout all of his enemies together. Similarly, in a 3v3 or 4v4 in order to get a high killing score you 're counting on the dispersal of the routing enemy forces and your cav superiority. If you can have a dedicated cav to win all those struggler kills, then you can afford to suffer more losses at some point, sooner or later. Eitherway most of the time you can't continue a rout solely with infantry or very few cav forces.

In the case of a "perfect encirclement", where you and your allies will be winning both flanks and pushing them towards the center, it's even more likely that kills will be minimized by a fast rout.

The reason Cain got a good score in the last game was due to it being a more decisive battle, a moment of bad synchronization with Cain (where he commited his left flank forces sooner than the "right time" and was under heavy pressure from Tomi - nearly got routed that is) and my deliberate attempt not to divert to Tomi's rear 2 or so from my 6 flanking cav, so as to prolong the time for captures.

[Puzz3D]

Well, it's clear that you can play in a way that attempts to maximize your or a team member's kills or kill differential, but I don't do that. I just play to win the battle, and I don't chase routers just to get more kills. I would say it's better to develop a style of play that you can use after this competition is over because the method being used to determine a winner is going to change. Right now it's just a method that allows random teams while still designating a single winner for the day's battles. I would have stuck with total kills since I don't like changing rules in the middle of a competitoin. We need more players involved before we can establish a real, teambased competition.

We could just get together and play battles, but I appreciate Tomi's effort to give a more visible face to Samurai Wars since it was languishing badly before this. We now have a new stat and money level which, in preliminary testing, appears to improve the gameplay as a result of experience gained in this CWC event.

[Tomisama]

Regarding the high score system, I still believe that having a score based on *your* and not the opponent's is technically better, because it reduces the effect game size has. Therefore, whether you're playing 2v2 or 4v4, your army contains a certain number of men and is a more comparable measuring medium. After all in 4v4 you got about 720 more possible kills to hunt than 3v3, and 1440 more than 2v2. Your army's size remains the same.I certainly see your point Alex.

And if it weren’t for random draw allies, I believe it would provide a good measurement.

We have used something similar in a previous contest, where the “value” of the surviving troops, compared to the “original cost” of the armies, gave us a percentage score to compare between battles.

But it was only used when combining the value of “all” of the winning side’s survivors, giving us a “team” score. When applied to individuals in a non-team random army group, the possibility that an ally could “hold back” to get a higher score, lurks in the shadows.

And of course the above was only good for comparing same size army groups (2v2, 3v3, etc.).


As far as just keeping the Kills score by it’s self. The possibility exists as we have seen, where the member of a loosing side could manage to “out-Kill” the individual winners of the Battle. My apologies to Tempiic, but that was the rule at the time :sad:

The “minus losses” helps keep that in check, and also limits rush armies that can get many Kills, but also incur very heavy Losses. The Emperor tells me that he considers heavy losses to be poor generalship :bow:

We could try to limit our Battles to 3v3 or 4v4 to get a better balance for comparison, or only accept scores from Battles of a certain size. But I am not sure our Samurai Warlord community is that strong yet. Maybe?

I know, another change? That may not be healthy at all. But this has been a grow-your-own Competition from the beginning. So let me know what you think :grin: