Welcome to Week #10. We originally planned to be hosting a shortlist Round Robin game, which would be 5 top players invited to a live round robin. The top players invited were a bit too busy, besides the eager Heyheuhei. We still plan on doing that this week, but we'll be discussing the exact timing and such later. Stay tuned for more details.

Other than that, we're still rolling with last week's template. Here's links if you need a reminder:

1v1: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=232586
2v2: http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=193940 (I'll tweak so that it's not AI surrender this go around)

Big thanks to all of you for watching and helping out and good luck this week!

Times & Dates: 1:00 PM GMT-0 @ November 16th, 2012 (Dunga Live Class)
12:00PM US/Central @ November 10th, 2012 (1v1)
12:00PM US/Central @ November 11th, 2012 (2v2)
4:00PM US/Central @ November 13th, 2012 (Lolowut's Coffee Break)


Methods of joining:

The easiest way to join this tournament is to post here. You will be thrown into my invite list directly, and be thrown into the total count of participants. This will help me gauge how many people will be playing and how big to make the tournament.

There are two other ways to join. I will be making a "Lobby" to test whether or not the participants signed up are active. This will show up in the tourney listings. So either you can be invited to it, or join it outright.

Lobby:

Even if you post here and get thrown on my invite list your spot is not guaranteed. You have to prove to me you're on at that time. I will be inviting everyone I know on Warlight into this "Lobby", to guarantee your spot you must join that tourney.

Disqualifications:

You may be disqualified from ever entering the tournament again if you:

1. Fail to join the actual tournament.
2. Get booted during the actual tournament.

It is up to the host's discretion.

Commentators:

Currently, Mythonian, Kcscrag, and I are the hosts. We have 2 official expert commentators named Dunga and Szeweningen. If you're interested in becoming a commentator (especially useful when one of us doesn't feel up to doing it), invite me to a game or add me on skype at Lolowut. You must have skype in order to become a commentator, I'm not willing to play around with unfamiliar programs. Only things you'll have to prove to me is that you have enough knowledge of 1v1 and in some cases 2v2 in order to accurately analyze a game, and not have a boring voice.

Q/As

Q: What happens if we don't get a nice number of people that would make the brackets logical?

A: Everyone who joined the Lobby will be thrown into the actual tournament, if the number of people is greater than the bracket, then it becomes a contest of joining fastest. I'm not willing to set up byes and odd brackets and host the tourney through invited games. Sorry, just the way I run it.

Q: Who hosts the stream or tournament if none of the hosts(Lolowut, Mythonian, Kcscrag) can?

A: Anyone can host it. I'm sure if I'm unable to host it I'd be willing to give you tips on how to do it. The stream requires a great computer, so be careful.

Q: I don't have a great voice and speak English terribly, but I do want to help the analysis, how do I do so?

A: Add Mythonian or I on skype. Me @ Lolowut and Myth @ Mythonian. We both have skype up during the tourney and can get your thoughts conveyed.

Q: I signed up, but I'm not getting invited. Why?

A: If you were disqualified from entry ever again, I've invited you to a game and informed you. Plead your case, I may be willing to let you back in.


Past Winners:

#1 (Sept. 8th): Zerbi (1v1)
#2 (Sept. 15th): Szeweningen (1v1)
#3 (Sept. 22nd): Phantasmagoria (1v1)
#4 (Sept. 29th): Szeweningen (1v1) Myhand and Szeweningen (2v2)
#5 (Oct. 6th): Heyheuhei (1v1)
#6 (Oct. 13th): Timinator (1v1) (Oct. 14th): Timinator and Heyheuhei (2v2)
#7 (Oct. 20th): Brisk (1v1) (Oct 21st): Timinator and Heyheuhei (2v2)
#8 (Oct. 27th): Timinator (1v1) (Oct. 28th) Simba and Myhand (2v2)
#9 (Nov. 3rd): Szeweningen (1v1) (Nov 4th) Trilussa and Gnuffone (2v2)

Congrats to the winners!

I'll see you November 10th!

- Lolowut

Wow 10 weeks of eliminating mayhem *claps*


Could you atleast use an settting ive been working on for months now

I am interested in participating to the 1v1 on Saturday.

(I didn't understand if it will be played the single elimination tournament or the round robin, if it will be a rr, then I'm sure you will find much better players than me, so feel free to ignore the above post.)

I like Sze's analysis of the Gnuff/Tril vs Myhand/Sze game in #9. Sze says the picking stage was unfair. He says he absolutely had to attack certain areas (eg, in the UK early, to Switz/France early, and then running around attacking more neutrals in UK to attack another neutral in Ireland because by this point he had no good options), as if better options didn't exist. He criticizes Gnuff's moves again and again. But, ultimately, who won? Gnuff. And which player is most responsible for having lost? Sze. The video's analysis does not take this into consideration.

Altogether, Sze attacked 5 neutrals, losing (I'm guessing) 8-10 armies in the attacks themselves and 5 armies to hold the newly conquered territories (armies which otherwise could have been used to attack or defend). 13-15 armies wasted on neutrals. A 2v2 for each team became a 2v2v1 for Sze/Myhand and a 2v2 for Gnuff/Tri. (If you click Players and see the board, neutrals count as a 'team' or player.)

Wasting 13-15 armies on neutrals -- running around like an angry chicken with it's head chopped off -- is what lost the game. Use those 13-15 armies more strategically and the game was won easily. Sure, Gnuff did a few 'creative' things. Sure, not getting first move in Eastern France when trying to bust Benelux was unfortunate. But the video analysis only talks about bad luck and Gnuff's mistakes. It doesn't account for the strategic miscalculation of attacking 5 neutrals (losing 13-15 armies), which is the strategic reason why that game was lost.

If your starting spots are as bad as they were, why make things worse? Myhand has told Sze before: "You don't HAVE to do something every turn." Jumping from strategy to strategy to strategy (for instance, go bust Benelux, enter Ireland from the north, enter Ireland from the south) didn't give myhand time to win the game. Bad assumptions led to a bad starting strategy, which led to jumping from one losing approach to the next. Altogether, Sze lacked strategic focus.

That's what I saw when I watched the game and listened to the biased explanations. Too bad myhand or Saladin weren't able to analyze the game instead, to say what really happened. He was obviously motivated enough to play his best and knew what to expect from the other team. So my conclusion is that Sze could only see others' mistakes and is either too proud to explain his own or not good enough (given the unique circumstances) to know where he went wrong.

I don't have a link to the game. Maybe someone else does.

Don't feel discouraged Sze. You'll get them next time :)

I was confused to sze's comment too, because he didn't point out our main error, that was in Ireland, where we let him break South Ireland (even if that error was due to laziness and miscommunication).

He pointed out mainly that they were unlucky, and I was surprised by a few things.

First about picking: we calculated that 50% chance of having or not having russia, I just think that if you didn't get the whole russia is not extremely unlucky but regularly unlucky.

About his attack in Benelux, that very attack followed 2 previous attacks in wich he had the first turn, or I would have killed him in the center, so in that very case we were unlucky not them.

Regarding his playing I don't agree with you, beacuse he played very well, even if attacking England first turn was a big error, even if the only one in my opinion.

Anyway I wasn't annoyed by his comment at all, beacuse I think that in order to beat 2 players like them, luck is a big necessity, and since it is a common thing (that I do as well) to notice only unlucky turns and not the lucky ones when you play a game, I just tought that his comment was perfectly comprehensible.

The only bad thing about it was the fact that the video wasn't so instructive for people who saw it, but since sze is the best commentator we have I cannot blame him at all, the fact that that game was decided mainly by luck was a thing that had to be enlighted.

/was hoping for a new 1v1 templater. Ohwells

I miscounted: Sze killed 6 neutrals (losing 14-16 armies) to enter your bonuses.

His positioning required him to attack neutrals. Attacking 6 neutrals (instead of, say, 2-3, with a better approach) is what was costly.

Sometimes games are determined by luck. Sometimes by a player who makes the most bad moves (or the relatively less strategic moves). That game was determined partly by luck but mostly by Sze's attacking too many neutrals. Everyone played more or less straight up and in ways that could be expected. Sze did not.

Tril, you attacked with intent. You hit Sze each time you attacked. The only neutrals you hit that I saw was in Switz to take the +2 bonus Sze gave you so he could try to bust a +3 bonus. Sze attacked neutrals to anticipate. He attacked neutrals each time. The only thing he killed all game was neutrals. He never killed an enemy. Eventually army numbers become so favorable for one team that the game is decided.

Reverse roles: If you, Tril, had been the neutral killer and Sze was the one hitting you, who would have won?

Also: If Sze had attacked less neutrals and been more focused in Ireland or Benelux, could he have bothered Gnuff enough to give myhand a chance to clear the middle? Killing 6 neutrals and 0 enemy territories gave myhand no room for error. He needed to be 'flawless'. The turn he jumped toward Iceland with 7-10 may have been the turn he could have cleared the middle, if he had hit Norway later (and still gained that spot) and worked the middle more aggressively. (I say that without seeing the calculations and actual army numbers in the middle.) Myhand does like to delay. It can be beautiful. But when the window of opportunity is closing, sometimes brute force could work. That battle in the middle, however, is all mind reading -- and reading Gnuff's mind is hard to do, given the apparent randomness of strategic patterns of some of his moves. But Myhand could have been afforded more time to work the middle.

Gui, please post exact turns with substitute moves that would have been better ex ante. I am happy to do an open analysis.

I can't. (1) I can't time travel (ex ante implies I can go back BEFORE you made the moves and tell you what to do). (2) I don't have the game link and won't go watch the video again. (3) Get myhand to sit down with me to talk about what he was doing/thinking so I can provide a collaborative approach, and I could tell you what I might do. But that would feel like work, so (4) I'd like an hourly salary in exchange for helping you become a better all around player :)

My analysis above is simple: If you play a 2v2 and kill 6 neutrals and 0 enemies without either busting an enemy or gaining a bonus, something is not right in the approach. Kill less neutrals and have more firepower for the enemies is the gist of what I'd do if I were you. But I'm not you, so maybe I wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. (That is, do you think I would have made the same picks as you?)

If I had been the one who made your picks and your moves and then analyzed the game on a video, I wouldn't have blamed luck so much and implied Gnuff is a fool. Instead, I would have just flat out said "my assumptions from turn 1 were wrong. I attacked too many neutrals and didn't give my teammate much time to turn things around. I wasted armies without really doing much. The other team didn't waste armies in my area. They won."

would like to join the 1vs1 tonight. :) hope i get the time difference right. :S

i would like to take part in tonights as well plaese?

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3382512
Gui, ex ante meant using the intel that I was provided with the exact turn, which you can do. It is true I attacked a lot of neutrals, but the problem is I played only what the position gave to me. I could not have played it in any other way not taking some other huge risk. Also quoting: "i don't have to do something every turn" seems misplaced, since it only applies to equal or close to equal positions, which was definitely not the case. I know you like to post open critique on me, which is healthy, since it keeps my ego in check, but please try to post sth that actually makes sense.

my assumptions from turn 1 were wrong. I attacked too many neutrals and didn't give my teammate much time to turn things around. I wasted armies without really doing much. The other team didn't waste armies in my area. They won

1st sentence yes, 2nd sentence wrong. Unless you could provide better moves it's not analysis, it's just pointing towards a statistical data point.

Kill less neutrals and have more firepower for the enemies is the gist of what I'd do if I were you.

Yes, if it is possible, I do it, if it is not, I don't. I can only play what the position gives to me meaning I play moves that I don't find better alternative to. If you are pointing to the picks, that's actually the only part you might be right, I did not analyse them after the game, maybe giving russia away was the way to go.

The 10th edition will be Medium Earth they said...


It will be funny they said...

Gui vs Szeweningen soap opera is getting old

put it on CBS at 1130 on weekdays and it will be everybodys favorite soap

P.S.
Since it is very likely that I will come back home at the very time in wich the tournament will start, can I be invited just to the official tournament so that I don't have to cut off 30 minutes from my studies in order to confirm my presence?
I assure that I will be in time.

"Gui, please post exact turns with substitute moves that would have been better ex ante."

Since I either think that is intersting to do some open analysis, and since I know that you know that I'm not doing that in order to annoy you, I would be intersted in you to analyse your very first turn.

Your attack with all in England, as I said, was your only error in my opinion.
Infact the chance wich that attack would be good is only of the 18%, considering me a decent player. (I will explain why)

If I would be in Ireland the attack would be bad (No reason to explain you why)

If Gnuffone would be there and if he would have tried to take Ireland in one turn, your attack would be good only if he would have failed the attack in that very spot.
(64% of taking the spot, 50% of finding me there: it means 18% of chances of having done a right thing)

Infact even if he wouldn't have completed Ireland, if he would have taken just that spot, he would still have enough troops to defend from your attack, infact unless you wouldn't have been ok to give up completely with the center - thing that would have been worse than breaking Ireland - you wouldn't have been able to take that spot.

Considering also the possibility of not taking it, even if you would have focused with all there, beacuse it would be reasonable to find an 8 troops defence (in case he would be lucky with Ireland, 9), wich is not necessary not break with a 12 troops attack.

What do you think about it?

Hey, in the 1v1 template, maybe you should change it to 16% luck instead of 75%.

I forgot this:

So ex ante would have been better to put all in austria.

First we knew all of your picks, but we did not know who was where.
Second since turn 1 I was playing under the assumption that we were behind.
On turn 1 I saw that I would be stuck on 5 income for the rest of the game, so the only chance I saw we had was for me to stall both of you long enough for myhand to get counterplay since I thought that if Gnuff gets safe expansion (especially if he gets +3 first turn) myhand won't be able to do anything (the only choices where going thruogh norway or eliminating him in slovakia which seemed very improbable considering we'd be behind in income). In any case I made the judgment that if we are in a stall, my team will lose in the long run. Anyway there was a slight chance you'd go for ireland if you were there, but basically it was a shot I think i had to take since Gnuff easily could have been there and if he was there, the probability of going for ireland 1st turn would be much higher. Also i don't think what you say is true, if I have high stacks in UK my attack will be succesful more often than not, since I don't need to break into ireland right away, but I need to stall Gnuff. If he tries to take ireland and fails while taking contested spot he can defend if he deploys all, but that also means that he will not get any bonus the same turn since he can't defend ireland and take last spot (he'd need at least 1 additional deployment to finish it.) but even then, he'd get negative net income. Also 11vs7 can take so i actually could get into ireland the same turn by force, not to mention that losing austria was not that bad considering myhand was in hungary. I was more comfortable with that kind of stall with Gnuff than with you. Also see that if I move with 4 in UK Gnuff would have to miss exactly that territory and he'd be able to defend and finish ireland the same turn, my UK pick would become useless.

So to sum up the 1st move was based around the assumption that our positioning was worse and if Gnuff is not contested than we'll lose, which seems quite obvious to me factoring in my positioning with being stuck on 5 income and myhand's positioning which was worse than Gnuff's. Deploying to austria is the safe way to go and I'd do that if I was sure that you were in ireland, but here I made the judgment that Gnuff's positioning had to be contested and losing austria was not that important considering myhand would hit Nitra in any scenario and he'd be able to counter it effectively. In any case bar 1st move on benelux I think I extracted max deployment from both of you losing minimum seeing you never got austria and Gnuff actually transferred into ireland.