[Discuss] Strategies with Small Army Groups
Eoghan Barry
eoghan.barry at gmail.com
Thu May 17 18:46:36 CEST 2007
Could the siege engine overcrowding problem be because the siege engines
aren't spread out evenly over the front line during a siege battle? This is
just a theory as I don't know how it works in the code, but perhaps in some
battles most of the siege engines get bunched up down one end of the
battlefield with just a couple up the other end. All the troops up that end
of the field are trying to get onto the fortifications using just a few
engines, so you get massive overcrowding.
On 5/17/07, discuss-moderated-request at news.battlemaster.org <
discuss-moderated-request at news.battlemaster.org> wrote:
>
> Send Discuss-moderated mailing list submissions to
> discuss-moderated at news.battlemaster.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://news.battlemaster.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-moderated
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-moderated-request at news.battlemaster.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-moderated-owner at news.battlemaster.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Discuss-moderated digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Regions isolated from the capital (Josiah Allen)
> 2. Re: radio button voting with javascript mostly done
> (Stephen Pollei)
> 3. Re: Strategies with Small Army Groups (Lyle Esau)
> 4. Re: Feature Request: 2nd OOC tag (Lyle Esau)
> 5. Re: Feature Request: 2nd OOC tag (Justin Licht)
> 6. Re: Strategies with Small Army Groups (Anthony Cerqueira)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 21:47:27 -0400
> From: "Josiah Allen" <josiahallen at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Regions isolated from the capital
> To: "BattleMaster general discussion list"
> <discuss at news.battlemaster.org>
> Message-ID:
> <8f0d4f790705161847s4a50666bl8cefe3cf4a83bf73 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part
> --------------
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:55:23 -0700
> From: "Stephen Pollei" <stephen.pollei at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] radio button voting with javascript mostly done
> To: "Tom Vogt" <tom at lemuria.org>, "BattleMaster general discussion
> list" <discuss at news.battlemaster.org>
> Message-ID:
> <feed8cdd0705161855r2df83370of43c114bc7843ea8 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/16/07, Tom Vogt <tom at lemuria.org> wrote:
> > Stephen Pollei schrieb:
> > > Over all my choose would be for bm_vote1 with a condorcet ssd backend.
> >
> > Errr... actually, I never said anything about condorcet voting.
>
> I know that; I was expressing my opinion. I don't really like the
> bm_vote2 setup, it feels too ad hoc and kludgey. Too many arbitrary
> "magic" numbers. The interface is complex and "non-intuitive"[1] . I
> don't think it handles candidates dropping in and out at last minute
> very well -- that makes it fragile. Has some tactical voting issues.
>
> Borda was meant to require that you rank each candidate, when you
> choose a borda-lite scheme that no longer requires that then all kinds
> of issues come out of the wood work.
> It's kind of like cryptography ; it's best if you just use a scheme
> that has been peer-reviewed instead of rolling your own.
>
> A lot of it comes down to goals, requirements, and constraints.
> Only by agreeing on a list of goals can we judge and evaluate the
> results of the alternatives.
>
> My proposed lists :
>
> goals and requirements:
> 1)must select one winner as deterministically as possible.
> a)must use the input provided in the votes to produce one distinct
> winner
> except in the rare cases of ties
> b) in rare case of ties maybe use prestige, then honour,
> then finally use random number to break tie
> 2)if a candidate is the first choice of a majority of ballets, it should
> win
> 3)should be resistant to tactical or dishonest voting: bullet,
> burying, abstain, etc as possible
> 4)outcome should be the same after adding or removing "weak"
> non-winning candidates.
> 5)a candidate that beats every other candidate in pairwise
> comparison, should always win.
> 6)the winner should be a "strong" winner that clearly everyone has as
> their first choice
> or otherwise has clear broad support among most of the ballets.
> 7)should handle "strong"[2] candidates entering or leaving at the last
> minute
> in a graceful manner.
> 8)should allow the voter to express their opinion both on all
> "strong" candidates
> and on all their favorites without penalty. in other words no
> dilution or limit to three.
> 9)should allow voters to rank or rate only the candidates which they
> deem necessary.
> 10)should be elegant and not kludgey, ad hoc, or arbitrary.
>
> Goals 4 and 7 are important to try and keep the game lightweight;
> people shouldn't have to change their vote if someone unexpectedly
> dropped out. so the voting method should be very robust against those
> kinds of changes.
>
> constraints:
> 1)must fit in the mysql database used for the game
> 2)must run in a acceptable period of time
> 3)must be fun and easy to use... it's a game not a high-stakes
> political situation
> 4)must have broad consensus of trustworthiness and fairness among the
> players
>
> What is your list of goals and constraints?
> What are your priorities?
> Why is condorcet unsuitable?
> How would you improve bm_vote2?
>
> The final choice is yours that is why I am worked on both methods.
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [1] "Robert Croson, Jr" used that word to describe it
>
> [2]A "strong" candidate is a top 5 candidate ranked by a condorcet
> method without any tie breaking in cases of circular ambiguities.
>
> each letter represents a candidate : "awrtnibgohc" .
> so if "a" beat all of "wrtnibgohc" and
> "w" beat all of "rtnibgohc" and
> "r" beat all of "tnibgohc", but "tnib" was circular ambiguous( t beat
> n;n beat i;i beat b;b beat t)
> then
> 1)a
> 2)w
> 3)r
> 4) bint
> 8)g
> 9)o
> 10)h
> 11)c
> the strong would be "abinrtw" and the weak would be "cgho" .
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:15:59 +1200
> From: Lyle Esau <lyle.esau at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Strategies with Small Army Groups
> To: BattleMaster general discussion list
> <discuss at news.battlemaster.org>
> Message-ID: <464BBADF.1060601 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Robert Croson, Jr wrote:
> > On 16 May 2007 at 19:24, Alex Davies wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> From: "Robert Croson, Jr" <robert at arcm.com>
> >>>
> >>> No, it's not an art form. You just have to have enough. You can't send
> >>> 2,000
> >>> troops against the fortifications with only 10 siege engines. Try 20
> men,
> >>> at
> >>> least. When it comes to assaulting fortifications, you can never have
> too
> >>> many
> >>> siege engines.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> *That's not the point*. 2000 men with 2 siege engines, or 600 men with
> 30
> >> sienge engines, the overcrowding happens - and I know that you *need*
> siege
> >> engines, but to the best of my doubtless deficit knowledge it is
> impossible
> >> to avoid overcrowding. Thus, if anyone knows how to avoid, or at least
> >> mitigate that problem (the overcrowiding, *not* the taking of the
> fortified
> >> position) - please, enlighten me.
> >>
> >
> > No, I'm not talking about a measely 30 siege engines. That's for
> beginners, and
> > those who aren't really serious about attacking fortifications. I'm
> talking 1000
> > infantry with *60* siege engines, and only getting "Overcrowded" instead
> of
> > "heavily overcrowded".
> >
> > If they're still overcrowded, you don't have enough. Keep adding more
> until you
> > stop getting the "overcrowded" message. Let's face it: The game is flat
> out
> > telling you don't have enough. The solution is obvious: Get more.
> I'm wondering if when this happens, did the attackers set them up in
> waves.
>
> 1st Line - 2-4 units of skirmishers, R3 Archers/MI
> 2nd Line - units with SE, R4 Archers/MI
> 3rd Line - extra Infantry
> 4th Line - Cavalry and possible TO Unit
>
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:24:29 +1200
> From: Lyle Esau <lyle.esau at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Feature Request: 2nd OOC tag
> To: BattleMaster general discussion list
> <discuss at news.battlemaster.org>
> Message-ID: <464BBCDD.2020603 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> LilWolf wrote:
> > K Ann wrote:
> >>
> >> Because people can ignore that and ban you for not following orders
> >> anyways. Then there is nothing that can be done to them because they
> >> choose not to accept the roleplay.
> >>
> >
> > Where do people keep running into these control freak judges that have
> > no regard for playing friendly? I've yet to meet anyone like that.
> >
> > In any case, just tell the judge or the council. Send them the little
> > OOC note. They're probably not ignoring them. They're the *only* ones
> > who can actually do something that might harm your character if you're
> > worried about something like that. Let the rest of the realm believe
> > you're off fighting against windmills(they have rotating wings and not
> > horizontally floppy ones like is natural! Evil!).
> >
> Oh they are out there, and I've probably run into every single one of
> them.
> Strip and Ban, you didn't step down fast enough so get out of our realm.
> Thats my most recent. Well that one taught me that people are no
> longer allowed to go to bed and sleep.
> Ban for not following orders. Just because you take a different
> route, and still show up in time.
> Ban. You are banned because your other character got banned.
> Not to mention some outrageous fines and such Judges like to give people.
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 21:38:02 -0500
> From: "Justin Licht" <mrsneeze659 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Feature Request: 2nd OOC tag
> To: "BattleMaster general discussion list"
> <discuss at news.battlemaster.org>
> Message-ID:
> <e59a76200705161938n342d690ei7d76985c14678dec at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part
> --------------
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:11:45 -0500
> From: "Anthony Cerqueira" <zol.tanzet at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Strategies with Small Army Groups
> To: "BattleMaster general discussion list"
> <discuss at news.battlemaster.org>
> Message-ID:
> <2ff948900705162111h4d860cdbo25d41771122aba0a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part
> --------------
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-moderated
>
> End of Discuss-moderated Digest, Vol 20, Issue 59
> *************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss-moderated/attachments/20070517/b17e4c80/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Discuss-moderated
mailing list