Open General Monster Tank Challenge

[mythos]

greetings generals and welcome to the

Open General Tank Challenge

Monster Tank Challenges (MTCs) were originally developped on older forums/message boards for PG2.
The idea was to play together a specific campaign and grow a (core) tank with as many kills as possible.
On the JP's forums this was also played from time to time. Golothin recently revived the idea and some popular interest arose. Some screenshots and discussion (the latter partially in German, partially in English) can be found in this thread.



As for the revive, the following categories are "official" for the "hero" units:
- tank with the most kills
- tank with the most XP
- fighter with the most aircraft kills

Additional rules might be announced for specific challenges. This could include one or more of these:
- tank leader for the (only for the starting tank, rest of units shall get random leaders, as usual)
- fire at will = no specific rules
- Prestige (aka Difficulty) Settings for player and/or AI
- all BVs (if possible; example some older campaigns require a specific type of victory for campaign paths and of course it can happen that players don't achieve a BV in a specific scenario, because of its difficulty)
- more to be announced

In order to qualify for the statistics, a screenshot for each "hero" unit is required, like this:

As you can see, the Flak/Fort/Transport/Level Bomber/Naval classes are all missing - due to engine limitations.
To keep everything simple, each participant should open a separte thread for his/her reports, with a fitting topic title.

Approximate timeframe at the moment is 4 months, but noone will complain if it takes 1-2 weeks longer.
In order for everyone to have the same starting conditions, it is allowed to add a leader to the starting tank. The type of leader will be specified for each MTC.



The purpose and reward for participation: lots of fun
(the winner gets to choose the next campaign, leader and rules)

[mythos]

.

Monster Tank Challenge I

Rules
- tank leader: Overwhelming Attack
- Prestige Settings: 75-150% (player), 100% (AI)
- all BVs


Efile + campaign download:
http://www.open-general.com/install/efi ... LE_LXF.zip

[lvjtn]

Chris, can you clarify the leader rule please:

a) should i add the fixed leader at the begining of the campaign (gt-1 of the first scen) even the tank has zero bar

or

b) should i edit the leader of the (wannabe) monster tank, when it gets the leader?

[Keighleyred]

lvjtn


i created mine using option A

a) should i add the fixed leader at the begining of the campaign (gt-1 of the first scen) even the tank has zero bar

[lvjtn]

i created mine using option A

thanks!

[mythos]

I was lazy and took option b), but a) also works

[Parabellum]

Scenario 7: Battle of Bialystok-Minsk
I started the battle last night. And I have some interesting about how I would like to fight. But they all depend on how the following questions are answered by the designer ( Björn): The task is to evacuate 10 units -> which units are counted: only your own core units or also all aux units that the AI controls as player 3 ? Does the AI understand its task as player 3 and does it actually evacuate its units?

thanks in advance

[Golothin]

Scenario 7: Battle of Bialystok-Minsk
I started the battle last night. And I have some interesting about how I would like to fight. But they all depend on how the following questions are answered by the designer ( Björn): The task is to evacuate 10 units -> which units are counted: only your own core units or also all aux units that the AI controls as player 3 ? Does the AI understand its task as player 3 and does it actually evacuate its units?

thanks in advance

This scenario isn't really a scenario. You should "only" drive your core units to the EHs and enjoy the show. The AI (Player 3) knows what to do and leads the units to the EHs. However, the AI escaped units will not be enough to win.

If you want to fight - defend the AI units - give it a try. I haven't tested it and I guess that the opposing air force and artillery will eventually hunt you down.

[Parabellum]

Scenario 7: Battle of Bialystok-Minsk
I started the battle last night. And I have some interesting about how I would like to fight. But they all depend on how the following questions are answered by the designer ( Björn): The task is to evacuate 10 units -> which units are counted: only your own core units or also all aux units that the AI controls as player 3 ? Does the AI understand its task as player 3 and does it actually evacuate its units?

thanks in advance

This scenario isn't really a scenario. You should "only" drive your core units to the EHs and enjoy the show. The AI (Player 3) knows what to do and leads the units to the EHs. However, the AI escaped units will not be enough to win.

If you want to fight - defend the AI units - give it a try. I haven't tested it and I guess that the opposing air force and artillery will eventually hunt you down.

OK, this scenario has a lot of potential to change the scoring. But the player has to invest a lot of time (and probably prestige) and the desired outcome remains uncertain.

[mythos]

Scenario

Major Heinz (without rules)

IMO, the [all BVs] rule should always be interpreted on a "if possible" basis. If players are unable to achieve a BV because of scenario complexity, they should still qualify for the statistics - if all other rules are met.

What do you think ?

I was lazy and took option b), but a) also works

let me correct that, to avoid confusion in future MTCs: option b) worked, because in this campaign the 2 starting units have a 100% leader chance. If that is not the case, then of course option a) is the way.

[randowe]

Scenario

Major Heinz (without rules)

IMO, the [all BVs] rule should always be interpreted on a "if possible" basis. If players are unable to achieve a BV because of scenario complexity, they should still qualify for the statistics - if all other rules are met.

What do you think ?

You are correct, imo. If people are not able to get a BV they should not be punished. Even experienced players may not get a BV in all scenarios and a regular or tactical victory is a victory too if they are qualify for the same campaign path.
Generally, there can be a more developed rule-set for the next MTC as this one was kind of rushed into service
Prestige settings should be given and reloads/cheats should be strictly forbidden. There is no need to rush through a campaign and players can take their time to restart a scenario and play without reloads/cheating.
Results between different players are only comparable when everybody follows the same rules

I was lazy and took option b), but a) also works

let me correct that, to avoid confusion in future MTCs: option b) worked, because in this campaign the 2 starting units have a 100% leader chance. If that is not the case, then of course option a) is the way.

Maybe there can be a dowloadable Efile like for the other CCs, and there can be a savegame from the first turn, first scenario with the tank leader already edited. So people start the MTC by loading the savegame

But yeah, more rules and stuff means there will be volunteers needed... and we all know volunteers are a rare species

[lvjtn]

Scenario

Major Heinz (without rules)

IMO, the [all BVs] rule should always be interpreted on a "if possible" basis. If players are unable to achieve a BV because of scenario complexity, they should still qualify for the statistics - if all other rules are met.

What do you think ?

the "all BVs mandatory" rule is necessary when you play a "most killed by a single unit" campaign. just think about it: if a player can play more turns, s/he obviously can kill more with her/his monster unit

EDIT: btw when i first read this "without rules", it sounded if we lived on the wild west and we were all outlaws

Generally, there can be a more developed rule-set for the next MTC as this one was kind of rushed into service
Prestige settings should be given and reloads/cheats should be strictly forbidden. There is no need to rush through a campaign and players can take their time to restart a scenario and play without reloads/cheating.
Results between different players are only comparable when everybody follows the same rules

you are right, and i think basically these rules have been installed too indirectly, just we forgot to write them clearly. well, the prestige level is strictly defined for MTC I (75-100%), so Patrick's run is unofficial because of his chosen prestige level, which is not a problem, everybody can practice any campaign, and the winner won't get a gold bar after all, it's not that serious challenge about reload: we should ask players to not do that like we do in regular ccs at general level or higher

Maybe there can be a dowloadable Efile like for the other CCs, and there can be a savegame from the first turn, first scenario with the tank leader already edited. So people start the MTC by loading the savegame

yep, you are right, so i can add cc_mtc01.zip package with your stuffs tomorrow, and the leader will be predefined. is that okay for everybody?

[Major Heinz]

Rules
- tank leader: Overwhelming Attack
- Prestige Settings: 75-150% (player), 100% (AI)
- all BVs

Mythos wrote that the player can use up to 150%. So I don`t see why my prestige setting should be a foul.

My understanding of "BV if possible" was that it is not allow to miss the BV, if it is possible for the player (like don`t capturing the last VH in time when posasible). I am just not interested in starting a scenario everytime I miss a BV, because I have not the time for that and it bores after a few tries. I also see no advantage in my playing style. If I had to restart a scenario, I would know it better and better and can make it perfect after a certain time and can also score more kills / experience from run to run.

As I wrote LXF is new for me, like the whole game. I have played not so many campaigns until yet. So I will play safety this campaign, because otherwise I couldn`t end it. Also I am not really sure how I would get a BV at Khalkin Gol. Because of this I see no sense in such rules explosion, because otherwise events like this would become a elite event.

[randowe]

It's not meant to be an offense against you Major Heinz. It's just that in the future the rules have to be better developed because there are many small settings that can have a big impact in the long run. Especially when you play for the benefit of just one unit. Or two units, with the fighter plane.

For example, if there are 10 TVs and 10 BVs in a 20 scenario campaign there are already 10 TV scenarios where a player had the chance to play many more turns and thus the hero tank will have a hugh chance to score more kills.
One reload may seem nothing worth to note, but one reload in every scenario of a 20 scenario campaign has already a hugh impact.

Of course nobody likes to talk about rules, but there have to be rules so the results of different players become comparable.

I mean, it's not that we have to implement some kind of anti god mode where saving is impossible

[Major Heinz]

I know that it is no offense against me (okay that Csaba blamed me using 150% were a lit bit ridiculous). I just have a different opinion. It should be in all forum members interest, that as many members as possible, participate in such challenges or CCCs. If there are so hard rules it is not friendly for beginners.
Also a must restart of a scenario would prevent people from taking part in the challenge, if they have not so much time.
Lastly I contradict that hard rules are needed to make comparisons with players. I don`t need to play the campaign to know that most likely all participants are better players as me and they would get better results anyway. Imo, different settings are needed to make a fair or better more exciting comparison.
Finally, I would like to say that this whole discussion has taken a bit of the desire to continue playing. I just wanted to take part in the campaign in a very uncomplicated way with my playful skills.

[lvjtn]

Csaba blamed me using 150% were a lit bit ridiculous

i didn't blame you, i simply misinterpreted the rules, maybe my unconciousness suggested that 75-100% would be better for a MTC than 75-150%

If there are so hard rules it is not friendly for beginners.

that's correct, but a monster challenge never was intended for beginner-friendly. just think about it: this kind of challenge is about finding the most effective tricks, exploiting the weakest point(s) of the design, using your best skills, etc.

Imo, different settings are needed to make a fair or better more exciting comparison.

mtc is about one thing: create a monster, which is the most experienced veteran and a killer machine

there can be other kind of challenges (like "pferde only challenge" where you can't use motorized units), and a regular cc* gives much more fun and opportunities for using different tactics, but this one has a very simple (but very popular) point of view, it's not about fair play, it's about killing

I just wanted to take part in the campaign in a very uncomplicated way with my playful skills.

please, don't let anybody discouraging you. if you like to play it, continue. all veterans started as a rookie, playing more gives you the experience what you need for a hardcore mtc with all bvs later

* cc team started the discussion about the next regular cc, unfortunately this whole year was against us, i really hope we can launch it at the beginning of the new year

[mythos]

Thanks everyone


The idea behind "all BVs" was originally rather about playing speed. Many people don't have that much time and/or patience, so that constantly playing 14-16-18+ turns till last TV turn for the could reduce the number of participants. And the longer an individual scenario takes, the longer it takes to complete the challenge as a whole, thus delaying future MTCs.
Of course, the "all BVs" rule was also considered to have a fair, serious measurement for comparison.

We'll see what makes sense and how to better word the rules after this first MTC

[Parabellum]

@Major Heinz: The whole discussion before the MTC about possible rules of the game is only informal for me. The current discussion can only focus on future MTCs, but no longer affect the current game.
Chris opened the game with this post:

.

Monster Tank Challenge I

Rules
- tank leader: Overwhelming Attack
- Prestige Settings: 75-150% (player), 100% (AI)
- all BVs

It clearly defines the three rules for this challenge. There is no room for interpretation.
How you get BV in each scenario is your problem. Nowhere is it written that you are not allowed to save and reload during the scenario, because we are not at a CC at generals level, where this is undesirable. Manupulations with the suite are of course prohibited.
So just change your play style. That brings a good learning effect. The campaign has only a medium level of difficulty so far and at 150% prestige you should have problems with the cap rather than with the game results.

[Major Heinz]

Yes, I admit I didn't read some things correctly. You left out the point that confused me that both Mythos in the post at the top and Keyleighred in the German forum talked about all BVs if possible. And I misinterpreted that because I admittedly hadn't read everything and especially since it didn't make any sense to me otherwise.
But I am against the fact that you portray me as a "rule breaker" in the Raiders forum. As starting the campaign I really did not know that I need all BVs.
And I still doubt that this is an advantage for me, that I missed BVs, because

a) the first two scenario the player have to hold / conquer VHs. If you remember how I missinterprated "BV if possible" you should know that I can`t get a BV because I could not destroy the defending units on two VHs. So with a BV my score should have been better at least in this scenarios!
b) the campaign is long and there will be maybe a time, when I will get problems, because I have missed a lot of protos. So my core can get so much damage (because most of them are still unexperienced) that I even can`t give my OS with 150%
c) as I have written I needed three tries at Grodno to prevent a lose. In my last try I had more kills and experience like in my first try. This shows me that restarting a scenario can be more cheating like playing along with no BV!

Also the rule like it is is against Mythos idea behind it, because restarting a scenario takes a lot more time like to play one or two turns more.

I don't care if I'm officially not in the ranking, but I still disagree on this rule! Just saying this is an advantage is nothing than linear thinking for me, because as Chris wrote: We will only see at the end what is really useful and what is not!

But everything is okay. You have your opinion and I mine, but your arguments don't convince me.

[lvjtn]

as nobody loudly against Clemens' idea, i've uploaded the efile_mtc package to the repo, with the predefined tank leader (tested, it works), it will be available here from tomorrow (26th oct 2020) 04:00 a.m.:

http://www.open-general.com/install/efi ... _MTC01.zip

tomorrow i'll be busy, so if anybody (Chris, Para ) feels necessary to create an announcement post similar to the regular cc announcements, that's the link what you can use. hopefully it will work

[Major Heinz]

There is a strange graphik bug in the scenario Second battle of Kharkow.



What can I do to look the map normal? Even in the suite the map looks broken.

[randowe]

There is a strange graphik bug in the scenario Second battle of Kharkow.

What can I do to look the map normal? Even in the suite the map looks broken.

Looks like the image file is broken. Have you tried deleting the file and downloading it again?

When i check the scenario in SUITE, it looks good.

[Major Heinz]

Thanks, that helped!

[Major Heinz]

In the scenario Tatsinskaya Raid I lost because there was a message: Spotted enemies blocked all movement. (or something like this)

What does this mean?

There also seems to be a few units which I can`t attack but they can me attack.

I don`t know how to win under such circumstances.

[Golothin]

In the scenario Tatsinskaya Raid I lost because there was a message: Spotted enemies blocked all movement. (or something like this)

What does this mean?

Never heard of it - can you post a picture (battlefield after loss)?

There also seems to be a few units which I can`t attack but they can me attack.

Which units do you mean?

[Major Heinz]

I can`t reproduce it, because the message only appeared in my first try and I thought that the reason was that I tried to hold the southern airfield with the grounded JUs as surroundings. Maybe Luis will know what happened.

The unit which I can`t attack was an infantry or a Pak. I hadn`t looked what it is exactly but it was moved in a Sdkfz.

Since I could manage a BV now easily, maybe something with the exe was broken this night and restarting helped.

[lvjtn]

I can`t reproduce it, (...) Maybe Luis will know what happened.

if YOU can't reproduce, how do you expect anybody else can reproduce?

the game always creates an autosave file at the end of the turn, which will not be overwritten untill you press the "end turn" of your next turn. so anytime a strange or suspicious thing happens, just send this autosave file to Luis and/or me for further investigation with the detailed description of the possible glitch (which unit did what and where, etc.) without a decent report, it's no way to replicate the situaion. as it has been explained zillion times before

[Golothin]

There in a mistake in a briefing for …

CRIMEAN OFFENSIVE - 7 MAY 1944

East of Sevastopol, Crimea peninsula

...

ORDERS
a. Take all VHs.
b. Prevent that more than 2 enemy ground (naval) units reach the Exit Points.


… you have to prevent that more than 4, not 2 enemy units reach the Exit Points.

[hoza]

In the scenario Tatsinskaya Raid I lost because there was a message: Spotted enemies blocked all movement. (or something like this)

What does this mean?

This message occurs when reinforces come up but cannot move to a hex because this is occupied by a enemy unit

[lvjtn]

kursk is freaking boring. does ai really do nothing for a few turns? is that normal? am i intended to attack a superior enemy using an excelent defense formation? c'mon Björn, let the ai be a mindless berserker here

[Golothin]

kursk is freaking boring. does ai really do nothing for a few turns? is that normal? am i intended to attack a superior enemy using an excelent defense formation? c'mon Björn, let the ai be a mindless berserker here

Old fox, you checked whether the AI is set aggressive or defensive.

In the northwest, or generally on the flanks you can attack immediately (and roll up the "perfect" defense from behind) - the German spearheads are passive for 2 rounds, trying to lure you into a "trap". As you know, the Russians attacked during this phase and were beaten.

at latest, the German spearheads should wake up in third turn... and then your defense should stand

[lvjtn]

German spearheads are passive for 2 rounds, trying to lure you into a "trap". As you know, the Russians attacked during this phase and were beaten.

ok, i've played two turns, and attacked only in SE, where i saw a chance for limited advance, but was scared that nothing happened in the north, where i think an immediate russian attack would be a suicide

and no, i haven't checked suite, i know your very detailed design as diferring battlegroups can have diferring settings, which is not so easy to examine in suite, that's exactly why i asked here what i'm expected to do

[Parabellum]

Thanks to Csaba for continuing to play the campaign. I've taken a break. I want to wait for the stragglers (hoza, mythos, keigleyred) and give them motivation. I mean, it's like going for a walk with small children - when they lose touch with the top, they lose the desire to keep walking.
Unfortunately, the break is so long that in the meantime I have been able to play two other small campaigns ...

[lvjtn]

i really don't think too much summary is needed for this campaign. it's a high quality, interesting, well balanced, well designed piece of work. as always: playing at lower prestige level is recommended only for experienced players, the money is much more important with no-autorefit campaigns

i hope my records can revitalize your enthusiasm

[Wonderdoctor]

I wasn't pleased with my core at 2nd Kharkov, so restarted the campaign. Have ended up at 2nd Kharkov again and will post all AARs as soon as that scenario is done.

[Parabellum]

I wasn't pleased with my core at 2nd Kharkov, so restarted the campaign. Have ended up at 2nd Kharkov again and will post all AARs as soon as that scenario is done.

I think you have received too many prototypes of tanks. This is usually a fact that the player is happy about, but here this fact creates too much competition to the intended monster tank (they steal the kills).

[hoza]

Thanks to Csaba for continuing to play the campaign. I've taken a break. I want to wait for the stragglers (hoza, mythos, keigleyred) and give them motivation. I mean, it's like going for a walk with small children - when they lose touch with the top, they lose the desire to keep walking.
Unfortunately, the break is so long that in the meantime I have been able to play two other small campaigns ...

here is the nearly 80 years old child who is at the moment just too busy in playing PBEM in PL-ligue. But I will continue this campaign which is indeed well made and quite challenging.

[Parabellum]

Thanks to Csaba for continuing to play the campaign. I've taken a break. I want to wait for the stragglers (hoza, mythos, keigleyred) and give them motivation. I mean, it's like going for a walk with small children - when they lose touch with the top, they lose the desire to keep walking.
Unfortunately, the break is so long that in the meantime I have been able to play two other small campaigns ...

here is the nearly 80 years old child who is at the moment just too busy in playing PBEM in PL-ligue. But I will continue this campaign which is indeed well made and quite challenging.

Good Morning . I know, I know. An old man is not an express train. But it also happens to affect me (more or less).
And I also understand the technical side, because there are regular PBEM problems when there are too many files in the save folder.