MTC generally rules discussion

[Major Heinz]

Parabellum and I had a little conversation about rules in the german Raiders PG2 forum. I asked who the overall winner of the MTC is: The person who heads the table for most kill or the person who was the best overall in all three ratings? I am in favor of the fact that all three ratings should count equally. Parabellum then said that he is in favor of the exp valuation no longer being included in the overall valuation at the next MTC, as this depends too much on coicidence.
We should better continue this discussion here.
In my opinion, this is only partially correct. I just tested that in first scenario. In order to be able to kill as many units as possible, the player must overrun one unit after the other and then the player receives the residual value of the strength of the unit to be overrun or twice the strength. A unit of 5 strenght results in either 5 exp or 10 exp (this seems to depend, among other things, on experience or whether the unit has already had hits in the round). Basically it can be said: If you try to overrun units of strenght 9, which I did a lot, you get more exp than players who overrun already crippled units. In addition, there is a possibility for worse players to do better in a category. If you do without one or the other overrunning and instead take 11: 1 or 5: 2 results or something like that (okay, there is high random factor, but the player mostly will overrun units), you will inevitably generate more experience. This results in more tactical options for an overall ranking.
Personally, I find the kills for the planes more random. Since I played or had to play one or the other turn of a scenario again in my last run, I made good acquaintance with the random generator there. In one scenario I won an aerial battle 9: 1, after a reload the aerial battle ended 4: 3 for the Germans.
In aerial battles there is no overrunning where the results are predictable. Since you sometimes only have a strongly limited number of turns, you may still have to shoot down bombers urgently and thus take other fighters and fighters have to reammu at some point, this can have consequences for the ranking. But it is totally okay for me, if the category will stay in the rankings, although I don`t like it, because all not-shut-down-planes the player let live to give a next turn kill for his fighter are a danger for all core units.
I think in most of the scenarios were the chance to get more kills or exp for his , but time limit, range limit and ammunation limit prevented this. So my idea is: Not all BV, just all Victory and maybe next time a MTC for a campaign in which attachements have no penalty (like in LXF more ammu kills range).


I would like to put all of this up for discussion and hear what the other participants say about it.

[Keighleyred]

Good post

i was also thinking any victory but still all start same prestige and leader

[Wonderdoctor]

No strong preference for planes and tank experience to be counted yes or no. I do feel that tank kills should count more than the others if these other are maintained.

[randowe]

Well, it was written in the MTC1 announcement that:

(the winner gets to choose the next campaign, leader and rules)

So it is up to the winner to choose wisely the next campaign, settings and rules to attract players.

(We should give it a try to se if it works or not )

[mythos]

Parabellum and I had a little conversation about rules in the german Raiders PG2 forum. I asked who the overall winner of the MTC is: The person who heads the table for most kill or the person who was the best overall in all three ratings? I am in favor of the fact that all three ratings should count equally. Parabellum then said that he is in favor of the exp valuation no longer being included in the overall valuation at the next MTC, as this depends too much on coicidence.

In my opinion, this is only partially correct.

I agree with Para: the XP rating should be excluded for future MTCs.
While Overrunning is not treated exactly the same as normal combat, it is still evaluated as combat, thus the usual XP rules apply:
- XP-bar difference (including [C] units, for both sides)
- statistics (attack, defense, initiative, Strength Points - all for both sides)
- entrenchment of defender
- Lasting Suppression of defender
- how often the defender was hit

Thus, hypothetically, a player who picks a Pz III as and has a better grip "how many attacks do i need for an Overrun" will accumulate more XP, than a player with a Panther or Tiger.
Because of this, the XP-rating is too gamey/cheesey for a proper "challenge"



As for "who is the winner": since MTC stands for Monster Tank Challenge, the winner should be determined by "Tank with most kills".
If this is a draw, one could consider adding the XP to the equation or just say "both are the supreme rulers of the airmchair".
The fighter with most kills is just there for bragging rights

[summary] Not all BV, just all Victory

The reasoning behind the "all BV" rule, instead of "Victory or BV" was, as you partially summarized yourself: more time/turns.
More turns not only goes to the player.
More turns also goes to the AI: if AI has 1+ Supply Hexes and receives Prestige, the whole challenge gets highly randomized, because noone can foresee how players X and Y will resolve a scenario, when in relation to this AI reinforcements arrive or when (and where if multiple SHs) the AI buys more units.
Not to mention that capturing AI SHs is usually a priority goal (exactly for the reason to limit AI troops), thus less experienced players might not profit from "Victory or BV" at all.
Also, experienced players could easily abuse this, by isolating an AI Victory Hex at the start of the scenario, overwhelm the AI's troops, and then just park near the AI's SH.

I don't know how the "all BVs" rule can be defused to make the challenge enjoyable for everyone - but before rolling over this rule, please think about the background "why it was chosen in the first place".

[randowe]

Just for the record, i am strongly against a "All BV" setting, simply because in my understanding a MTC should generate the best tank with the most possible kills in a campaign ever.
So it should be the player's descision to decide wether he/she goes for a BV or regular V or TV. Only BV gives a proto chance and often minor victories are punshied when it comes to after scenario prestige, so it is not always wise to choose a TV.
In my logic i would of course try to play as many turns as possible to get the most kills

[Major Heinz]

Well, it was written in the MTC1 announcement that:

(the winner gets to choose the next campaign, leader and rules)

So it is up to the winner to choose wisely the next campaign, settings and rules to attract players.

(We should give it a try to se if it works or not )

Well, the problem is, that it was never concretisized who will be the winner (most kills or best results in all three rankings). Luckily this is not a big problem at all, because I think Para will win no matter if one way or the other. There is also a logical problem with this announcement. If a player will win, he just can cancel everything which is against more success for him and he will testify the first place for followiung MTC. Just saying, Para wants to kick the category in which he probably will have the worst ranking.

Parabellum and I had a little conversation about rules in the german Raiders PG2 forum. I asked who the overall winner of the MTC is: The person who heads the table for most kill or the person who was the best overall in all three ratings? I am in favor of the fact that all three ratings should count equally. Parabellum then said that he is in favor of the exp valuation no longer being included in the overall valuation at the next MTC, as this depends too much on coicidence.

In my opinion, this is only partially correct.

I agree with Para: the XP rating should be excluded for future MTCs.
While Overrunning is not treated exactly the same as normal combat, it is still evaluated as combat, thus the usual XP rules apply:
- XP-bar difference (including [C] units, for both sides)
- statistics (attack, defense, initiative, Strength Points - all for both sides)
- entrenchment of defender
- Lasting Suppression of defender
- how often the defender was hit

Thus, hypothetically, a player who picks a Pz III as and has a better grip "how many attacks do i need for an Overrun" will accumulate more XP, than a player with a Panther or Tiger.
Because of this, the XP-rating is too gamey/cheesey for a proper "challenge"

As for "who is the winner": since MTC stands for Monster Tank Challenge, the winner should be determined by "Tank with most kills".
If this is a draw, one could consider adding the XP to the equation or just say "both are the supreme rulers of the airmchair".
The fighter with most kills is just there for bragging rights

[summary] Not all BV, just all Victory

Maybe my results that overrunning is predictable was wrong, because I only tested it in the first scenario where not so many differences between the units are.
If a player is playing a "until war end campaign" just with a PzIII tank as he would have earned the ranking most exp really well. Think about it: Playing against IS-2, T-34 and all other soviet or allied armour which can shoot with range 2 is no desire if you only have range 1.
In my eyes, having only one category that counts is pretty lame. And for me, an opposite pole to the most kill is needed. Simply to make it more exciting. exp was quite good for that. And even if there is a random factor: You must admit, the player still have to work and can influence things to win this category! And I can say to you: If most kill is the only ranking not always the best player will win, but rather the player with the most freetime and will to restart scenarios over and over to make a better score, because there is no limit for restarting a scenario. Therefore other categories are good, because it is rather harder to do better in more categories than in one.
And I can say that I lost contact with the top spots in three scenarios in particular (Minsk, Voronezh and 3rd Kharkov). If it hadn't been for the exp ranking, then I would probably have canceled the MTC after 3rd Kharkov at the latest, because the scenario itself was far too frustrating and annoying.
And don't come to me, the focus should be on fun. You all argue with the rankings!

The reasoning behind the "all BV" rule, instead of "Victory or BV" was, as you partially summarized yourself: more time/turns.
More turns not only goes to the player.
More turns also goes to the AI: if AI has 1+ Supply Hexes and receives Prestige, the whole challenge gets highly randomized, because noone can foresee how players X and Y will resolve a scenario, when in relation to this AI reinforcements arrive or when (and where if multiple SHs) the AI buys more units.
Not to mention that capturing AI SHs is usually a priority goal (exactly for the reason to limit AI troops), thus less experienced players might not profit from "Victory or BV" at all.
Also, experienced players could easily abuse this, by isolating an AI Victory Hex at the start of the scenario, overwhelm the AI's troops, and then just park near the AI's SH.

I don't know how the "all BVs" rule can be defused to make the challenge enjoyable for everyone - but before rolling over this rule, please think about the background "why it was chosen in the first place".

Although I was able to partially refute the fact that I had an advantage in my first run with not all BV (yes I knowed the campaign better and maybe thus the better results, but it helped a lot to get as many prototypes as possible and more pp, so I could play full OS with not only one tank in the last scenarios, so my was not alwyays needed to secure scenario goals and could concentrate on gaining kills and exp), I can partially understand the argument. If two players have the same strategy and sent the the same way, one destroys maybe 60% of the units on the map in the BV limit, the other 50%, then both could end up at 70% in all victory, because, for example, there are no more enemies within range. However, the fact remains that all BV can put some players off. All BV can mean having to play scenarios several times and not every player is in the mood for it. If I take part in an MTC again, I will let`s play it too. That's why I would have to do a without rules try again first, because all BV and Let's Play won't work.
At least all BV should be overridden in scenarios that always stop on the same turn. Because then all BV makes no sense at all and is even a disadvantage for a player, since he misses a possible prototype.

I just find only must kills boring. That only degenerates into FC Bayern Para and FC Bayern Csaba or FC Bayern whoever bullshirt, which we have enough in the Bundesliga.
And I'm not writing that now because I really want to win the next MTC. I won't win that anyway. I am satisfied when I do quite well in a category. I just think there should be additional categories so that there is an incentive to keep playing. If a player really fucks up in a scenario in the category must kill, he will never make up for it. Therefore, additional categories are needed on which the player can concentrate, while the must kill leader cannot. And in the end, the one who was the best overall wins.

Anyway, I don`t want to argue and have said everything that I want. This is just my phylosophy that I don`t want boring competitions, because they are all over the world.

Anyway, I will see what will happen and if MTC will be fun for me. Otherwise, I might just start a competitive event.

[mythos]

Just for the record, i am strongly against a "All BV" setting, simply because in my understanding a MTC should generate the best tank with the most possible kills in a campaign ever.
So it should be the player's descision to decide wether he/she goes for a BV or regular V or TV. Only BV gives a proto chance and often minor victories are punshied when it comes to after scenario prestige, so it is not always wise to choose a TV.
In my logic i would of course try to play as many turns as possible to get the most kills

The question's problem lies not in the Proto or Prestige.

It lies in the scoring/evaluation.
Scenarios might hand out Turn-Prestige for the AI -> the longer you play, the more units are there for killing.
Scenarios might hand out V/TV reinforcements for the AI -> the longer you play, the more units are there for killing.

The "BV only" was never meant to punish players, it was there to have a consistent method of evaluating the kills.
If anyone can play "as long as the player wants", then the most logical way would be to always play till last turn TV, for maximum chances to score kills. This is awefully boring for me, and this feeling will be multiplied with longer and/or more difficult campaigns.

If a player is playing a "until war end campaign" just with a PzIII tank as he would have earned the ranking most exp really well. Think about it: Playing against IS-2, T-34 and all other soviet or allied armour which can shoot with range 2 is no desire if you only have range 1.

It is doable, though:

Code: Select all

Pz IIIL -50mm L/60 , 2905 exp , Overwhelming Attack  , 270 kill

viewtopic.php?p=1883#p1883

In my eyes, having only one category that counts is pretty lame. And for me, an opposite pole to the most kill is needed. Simply to make it more exciting. exp was quite good for that.

Interesting point

[randowe]

If anyone can play "as long as the player wants", then the most logical way would be to always play till last turn TV, for maximum chances to score kills.

Indeed it is!

[Parabellum]

I think the whole discussion is unnecessary and I would like to end it here.

First of all, it's an unwritten law that a monster tank is measured by the number of units it kills.

The MTC is just a specified form of a normal CC.
It was never the intention to introduce an overall ranking made up of several individual items. In the event of a tie, the experience of the Monster Tank would alternatively have been taken into account to determine the person who is allowed to choose the next challenge - nothing more.
The CC Team (as the organizer) already agreed in November 2020 on the form in which all participants in the MTC will be honored in the SoH.

1) The winner in the main category Tank is entered as a general.
2) All those placed who have completed the campaign according to the rules are listed as officers.
3) Players who completed the campaign in full but played without rules (such as Major Heinz) are entered as NCO in the SoH.
4) The player with the most kills by a fighter is also awarded the title of Fighter Ace, regardless of how he completed the main category.

In addition, I will again create a "Simply the best" for all unit classes and supplement it with further statistics.
I intend to wait until hoza has finished running.

At this point, I would also like to ask Mythos to make a binding statement as to whether he wants to end or break off the MTC. Elsewhere, I had already approved an extension to the end of March.

[Keighleyred]

this started as a bit of a haphazard (challenge?) between mostly myself and Golothin on the german forum which took off brilliantly

when choosing this campaign with all BV`s same prestige and leader it was meant as no disrespect or to show up unexperienced players but to get a level playing field for results
hence some restarting ( i did quite a few)
i agree with para that its time to call a halt to this discussion and look forward to the next challange and unless Mythos/Hoza do something extraordinary

Para is the winner

[mythos]

At this point, I would also like to ask Mythos to make a binding statement as to whether he wants to end or break off the MTC. Elsewhere, I had already approved an extension to the end of March.

I had some health issues recently (that's why the JA2 thread didn't continue), also i was under the impression that the MTC only runs till end of January. I will think about it and reply within 2 days.

[hoza]

I am doing my best in running the campaign to the end. I have learned a lot on how I should have played but didnot. I would have to restart the campaign to come at least nearer to Paras results but I will not do this. So Para is the winner

[Major Heinz]

Since Parabellum has declared the discussion closed, this will be my last post on an MTC rules. I am not satisfied with the rules and the discussion culture here on the part of some people. Some of your points are certainly true, but I do not see that there is no room for solutions and compromises. I would also like to make it clear once again that my suggestions were mainly intended for future MTCs.
I have now decided: If there is another MTC, I will play it, but I will not write any more AARs here. Instead, I will play the MTC on my YouTube channel and publish overall rankings there, as I think they make sense. In order to get into this list, unlike here in the forum, no all BV are needed. Instead there will be a penalty for the player, if they miss more BVs as others. There will be four rating categories: most kills, exp, number of BVs and a final category. If there are no more side categories, then I might use something like kill / lost ratio or Army Cost. To get the final ranking, the placements for most kill and number of BVs are multiplied by two, the other two categories are only multiplied by 1. This regulation solves a lot of my problems and is also quite fair as it takes into account many counter arguments for changes. Most kill is more important than exp and is therefore rated twice. If you don't like all BV, you can play as long as you want or need and can win maybe most kill, but you must expect to be last at most BVs, which also counts twice (or maybe better 3 times). I will also name the winners of each individual scenario using this method. If two people have the same number of points at the end, the number of scenario wins decides. This means that the overall ranking remains exciting for longer, because according to scenario 13, Para would not have been in front of an unassailable 60 kills according to my rules, but only 2 points.
In any case, if you don't like all BV or if that's too difficult for you, you can take part in the challenge according to my rules, as there will be another MTC.
That`s all!

[Parabellum]

@Major Heinz: It will remain a mystery to me why you have to make everything as complicated as possible ...

Now let's wait together until all participants have finished or canceled the current MTC.

I've been thinking about a second MTC, including the rules, but haven't made a final choice yet. If other players have suggestions for campaign selection, they would like to publish them here. Suggestions are welcome.

[Wonderdoctor]

I've been thinking about a second MTC, including the rules, but haven't made a final choice yet. If other players have suggestions for campaign selection, they would like to publish them here. Suggestions are welcome.

If cavalry tanks are something that you are willing to accept, the Turkish campaign is an option. It has been on the potential CC list for a few years now.

[mythos]

I've been thinking about a second MTC, including the rules, but haven't made a final choice yet. If other players have suggestions for campaign selection, they would like to publish them here. Suggestions are welcome.

I don't know the exact criteria by which a CC is choosen, but i assume:
- something new
- something interesting
with "something" also being an Efile or special rules.
This doesn't limit the length of a CC - especially considering that CCs run a year or longer.


For an MTC however, the criteria should be different - especially considering that MTCs run only a couple months.
Example, a campaign like CC6 or CC32 could potentially create some hate towards the concept of MTCs (in particular with regards to the BV rule ), SuperBlitz or WSFW are very long (with the latter also featuring complex scenarios).
In other words: an MTC should be either easy (think of CC1) or short (campaigns with ca 10-20 scenarios) - the former allows longer campaigns, the latter difficult ones. Also, there is IMO no problem with picking past CCs as an MTC (otherwise we would run out of campaigns quickly, i guess) - this could also help re-filling the archives

[randowe]

I was also thinking about CC1. Why not play it again as MTC as some kind of tribute to the past or anniversary

[Parabellum]

I've been thinking about a second MTC, including the rules, but haven't made a final choice yet. If other players have suggestions for campaign selection, they would like to publish them here. Suggestions are welcome.

If cavalry tanks are something that you are willing to accept, the Turkish campaign is an option. It has been on the potential CC list for a few years now.

I think a cavalry campaign would also be possible. Did you mean this: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=184
It would have to be finally tested first. The cavalry should also have a leader. She currently doesn't have one at the start.

...
In other words: an MTC should be either easy (think of CC1) or short (campaigns with ca 10-20 scenarios) - the former allows longer campaigns, the latter difficult ones. Also, there is IMO no problem with picking past CCs as an MTC (otherwise we would run out of campaigns quickly, i guess) - this could also help re-filling the archives

How about with short and (relatively) easy? In this regard, my preference is very much on CC2. All maps are known, the scenarios have been modified a little. Here you have the opportunity to play the whole campaign with just one tank. In addition, this tank (and two other units) already has a leader. I would partly decide on the choice of the three leaders, partly leave it open to the players.

[Golothin]

Of course, I recommend unselfishly the NATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY ARMY campaign It's new, easy, with nations as opponents that no one has seen before. Lots of infantry to overrun, not too long, not too short... and much more speaks for this irresistible choice

[Parabellum]

... the NATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY ARMY campaign ...

Auto refit on or off? A potential player has certain aversions ... (no names)

Edit
First of all (maybe a prejudice, but I stand by it) - the Chinese and tanks are two pairs of shoes that don't go together.
Hence the second question: How can the FT be developed? What types are available until 1947?

[randowe]

... the NATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY ARMY campaign ...

Auto refit on or off? A potential player has certain aversions ... (no names)

just go ahead and don't take my strange habits into consideration when you pick the next MTC. There are other players, so it is not necessary to skip a campaign because of me

EDIT: i would have suggested the KAISER "long journey to freedom" campaign, because it has lot's of enemies. But unfortunately it takes some scenarios before you'll be able to get a cavalry, so it's a

[Keighleyred]

Golothin wrote: ↑2021-01-15 14:39, Friday
... the NATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY ARMY campaign ...
you`re just getting greedy now

how about resurrecting the original challenge from years gone bye ? (just a thought)

[Keighleyred]

Golothin wrote: ... the NATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY ARMY campaign ...

you`re just getting greedy now

how about resurrecting the original challenge from years gone bye ? (just a thought)

[mythos]

Questions: is it allowed to replay MTCs at a later time - how will the results be accounted for ?

[Golothin]

How can the FT be developed? What types are available until 1947?

Enough to be happy

Light Tank FT Char canon
Light Tank Vickers E
Light Tank T-26
Medium Tank Type 97
Medium Tank M4A4
Heavy Tank PzKw VI Tiger I - oh not, that was in another movie

Recon with overrun

Amphibious Light Tank Vickers-Carden-Loyd A4E12
Light Tank Marmon-Herrington CTLS-4TAC
Tankette Type 94B
Light Tank M3A3

Golothin wrote: ... the NATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY ARMY campaign ...

you`re just getting greedy now

Greedy? No, if I were greedy, I would invest my time in other things than PG2 stuff Giving priority to new campaigns is a matter of course. dig up these oldie but goldie zombie stuff is a slap in the face of any active campaign designer

[Keighleyred]

Golothin

sorry

i meant no disrespect or to cause offence with my light hearted quip
as a campaign maker you have gave me and others countless hours of fun

i can only applaud you in your work

once again i apologize for any offence caused

[lvjtn]

EDIT: i would have suggested the KAISER "long journey to freedom" campaign, because it has lot's of enemies. But unfortunately it takes some scenarios before you'll be able to get a cavalry, so it's a

a "monster whatever challenge" can be interesting too

iirc. Aleksandr once tried to train a german flak (spad) unit to be a

maybe a light / recon cavalry can be a hero too

[lvjtn]

I've been thinking about a second MTC, including the rules, but haven't made a final choice yet. If cavalry tanks are something that you are willing to accept, the Turkish campaign is an option. It has been on the potential CC list for a few years now.

i vote for playing the turkish campaign as the next official cc

[Major Heinz]

I have no real campaign suggestion, because there are only a few campaigns that I have played yet and only one them has the optimal length imo, but I will not suggest it. But speaking of lenght of campaigns: You should not only look for the number of scenario, but also look on the lenght of each scenario. As you have spoken about A long journey to freedom, you should know that there are a number of very long scenarios (maybe three or so with a duration of three, four hours, even if you play very fast). This should be considered for the time limit to end next MTC, too. (I don`t know the turkish campaign but I would say it is probably a WW1 campaign, and there also can be very long scenarios, because mobility of units came as far as I can see in WW2.) Just a hint.