Strategic Command Classic competition

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile, despite all my efforts last night, including giving the executable an exclusion from within Avast at least twice(!), Avast still hates the Patton Drives East executable and randomly warns me about it asking what I should do. At least Avast isn't automatically dumping it into the virus chest anymore! I've never seen Avast go so psycho-girlfriend about something Avast itself calls a generic threat. I'm starting to wonder if there's fire with that smoke...

If it is of any comfort, I get a lot of stupid crap from Norton 360's over aggressive heuristic checks with perfectly legitimate games. Best thing is to go into security and give a pass/approve to the game knowing that it is from a perfectly legitimate source and the internet protection software is going through a psychotic episode.

I agree, which is why I kept trying that and Avast was still spazzing out! I've never seen anything like it.

It's only affecting PDE for some reason (...I think, if I recall correctly, certainly not Weaps, I don't think Pac either). Worst case scenario, I just won't play a scenario from that group.

Actually, now that I think of it, Avast started griefing me over the autoplay front-end, too, after the mutual updates.  I may try turning Avast off temporarily while I play it.

[Yskonyn]

I am definately NOT playing the scenarios 4 times. That will be far too much to ask imo.

[Boggit]

I might agree with it, but I don't know what it means.  ??? Am I supposed to play Round 1 against everyone from the Soviet side? (And the whole five year Soviet campaign four times, once against each Soviet player? That's going to take a while, even for one match!)

No. I haven't made myself clear.

You'd play one game with one person in the Soviet side (or Division 2 if you like).

Either you can mutually agree your opponent, or I can randomly allocate. Again we can do either depending on the general consensus.

The idea is that you play 3 scenarios total, with the highest score winning. Only in the case of a tie will there be another round (and a short scenario at that) to decide the winner.

[Boggit]

I am definately NOT playing the scenarios 4 times. That will be far too much to ask imo.

I agree. Please see my reply to JasonPratt, which should set your mind at rest.

Let me know if you want to decide your opponent amongst yourselves, or whether I should allocate. I'm happy either way.

[Boggit]

Meanwhile, despite all my efforts last night, including giving the executable an exclusion from within Avast at least twice(!), Avast still hates the Patton Drives East executable and randomly warns me about it asking what I should do. At least Avast isn't automatically dumping it into the virus chest anymore! I've never seen Avast go so psycho-girlfriend about something Avast itself calls a generic threat. I'm starting to wonder if there's fire with that smoke...

If it is of any comfort, I get a lot of stupid crap from Norton 360's over aggressive heuristic checks with perfectly legitimate games. Best thing is to go into security and give a pass/approve to the game knowing that it is from a perfectly legitimate source and the internet protection software is going through a psychotic episode.

I agree, which is why I kept trying that and Avast was still spazzing out! I've never seen anything like it.

It's only affecting PDE for some reason (...I think, if I recall correctly, certainly not Weaps, I don't think Pac either). Worst case scenario, I just won't play a scenario from that group.

Actually, now that I think of it, Avast started griefing me over the autoplay front-end, too, after the mutual updates.  I may try turning Avast off temporarily while I play it.

Can you try a turn or two on one of the smaller scenarios to check that it works ok for you. :)

[Millipede]

Let me know if you want to decide your opponent amongst yourselves, or whether I should allocate. I'm happy either way.

You pick 'em or some sort of random thing works best for me.

[Yskonyn]

Random is most fun. :)

[Boggit]

I can allocate opponents randomly if that is the general wish.

I'll leave the question up for a couple more days to give everyone a fair chance to state their preference.

[nelmsm]

Definitely random

[Shelldrake]

Random works for me too

[Boggit]

Anguille has decided to join us, which means

I have one Steam code left.

Ideally I need one more player to even things up, so if anybody fancies pitching in that will be great.

If not we have to think up a way to accommodate Anguille. I can think of something, but another player would be optimal.

[Boggit]

Well the people have spoken. Random opponent allocation it is. :bd:

I'll give it until the weekend to see if anyone wants to take me up on the last Steam code.

And on 1st June the gloves are off... Cry "Havoc" and let loose the Dogs of War!  \m/

If I can't find a further opponent, and as we now have an odd number of people in the tournament, I am open to how we can resolve this.

My initial thoughts is to sound out a different volunteer to play (the opposite side this time) with the odd man out, and as a reward let them choose which game score they want to benefit from in the rankings. That is of the three volunteers - each may choose his best score in the round played.

e.g. Say Millipede volunteers for round 1. He plays his allocated opponent in round one, then swaps sides and plays another game. He then takes the highest score of the two games to carry forward in the competition.

To avoid this being really unfair to everyone, this will be mitigated by the fact that a volunteer can only benefit from one round in this way. Of course getting a draw in both games will not help you any, other than getting more experience with the game. ;D

Let me know what you think?

[Sir Slash]

Thanks for the 'invite' Boggit but I just got way too much other stuff in my non-digital world to deal with right now. But I'll be following and watching with interest.  O0

[ludi1867]

Boggit
    I think that what you have proposed makes sense.  I am willing to "volunteer" (if no one else is) to take a voluntary omission in one of the series....
    I know I have not said much, but I have been reading all your replies with interest.  My primary interest is only in playing the games!

[Boggit]

Boggit
    I think that what you have proposed makes sense.  I am willing to "volunteer" (if no one else is) to take a voluntary omission in one of the series....
    I know I have not said much, but I have been reading all your replies with interest.  My primary interest is only in playing the games!

@Iudi1867

Firstly, thank you for pitching in (and selflessly too - thinking you'd miss out in one of the rounds). O0

I may not have made myself clear - you have no need to lose out on one of the series. You get your scenario variety AND get to play a scenario from a different perspective.

I need one volunteer per round, to play the other side to the scenario they are already playing in the round. i.e. With the Russia Campaign scenario you'd get to play both the Axis and the Soviets against two separate opponents in that round. You then take your best score of those two games to carry over to your total score.

Essentially for volunteering you get two bites at the cherry for a win, or a better win for more points, as you are helping resolve an issue for the competition.

I hope that we'll eventually get 3 separate volunteers in total so as not to skew the competition more than giving a minimal advantage to the volunteers.

But if we have just one volunteer then I think with the extra "work" involved, it behoves everyone else to up their game! ;)

I hope having clarified this I hope you are still on board.