Stanislav
Belgium
Brussels
flag msg tools
badge
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ever since I discovered (and subsequently played) g1ul10's elegant Gallic Wars campaign, I wanted to play more historical campaigns using the CCA-system.

I don't have anything against the "switch sides" approach to CCA's scenarios. It works great - especially since the game plays so quickly. However, the feeling of commanding one faction/army throughout multiple battles against the same (bitter) opponent is very thrilling in its own right. Every banner is still hard-won and has an impact on the final score, and somehow things feel a bit less gamey.

Giulio's system for the Gallic Wars is great because it is so simple. It doesn't alter the game's rules in any way. It's easy to implement. And it facilitates a fair challenge even in campaigns where one side is significantly disadvantaged due to the historic circumstances.

I have now followed up with my own humble contribution - my so-called "Campaign Sheets" are available in the files section.

What does the package give you?

1. Six historical campaigns using official scenarios - Greco-Persian Wars Campaign (4 battles), Peloponnesian War Campaign (7 battles), Alexander the Great Campaign (7 battles), Second Punic War Campaign (14 battles), Third Servile War Campaign (7 battles), and the Gallic Wars Campaign (8 battles). More will come.

2. The Campaign Results are adjusted to account for the cumulative scenario imbalance across all of the campaign's battles (more on this below). This is only possible thanks to the many logged games at commandsandcolors.net/ancients. I will update the adjustments in the sheets as more games are logged, and the accuracy will thus increase.

3. Easy-to-use Excel sheets for record-keeping. Also easy to adjust the "balance compensation" if the users so desire.


What the sheets look like at the end of a campaign

The design and set-up of the sheet seeks to make them as easy as possible to use. However, the core of this campaign approach is the "compensation points". This feature allows you and your fellow generals to battle it out - even with unbalanced scenarios - without having to switch sides and still being able to find the right campaign winner. And this is Giulio's great innovation.

Important info and caveats on the point "compensations":

Now, I was not able to replicate Giulio's negative binomial model for finding the expected banners. For me, the conundrum was the lack of data on the achieved banners for the individual scenarios. It seems like a crucial piece of information for a proper probability-based model. So I resorted to something far more barbaric and unscientific - I simply plotted the data from Giulio's expected banner difference output and calculated a polynomial trendline equation (r squared was 0.98, for the record, though this metric is not necessarily convincing/useful/relevant on its own in this context). I used this equation to calculate the expected banners difference for all the scenarios I was interested in. By adding these expected differences together, I could find the fair points compensation for the disadvantaged side over the course of the campaign. I triangulated the findings by using the "quick and dirty" method described by amg100 (which only operates with integers, however, and is thus slightly less useful for the cumulative adjustmens I aim for). The two methods reach about the same results with regards to compensation in almost all campaigns.

Now, from a methodological perspective, there are countless issues with this approach. Heck, even the data from commandsandcolors.net/ancients is suspect given its opaque nature, qualitative difference between logged games (e.g. solo play vs 1v1), etc. Naturally, a bigger sample size would help - especially in some campaigns. And the whole approach of "reverse-engineering" Giulio's method with a barbaric trendline equation would surely make serious statisticians cringe with horror. But for me, it's ok. All of this is an approximation and I still think the adjustments get the job done. For sure, this approach gives me more confidence than my old campaign approach of simply adding a "compensation banner" to the "weaker side" equal to the difference in Command Cards. Once Giulio makes the inner workings of his method public (he has said he will do this when time permits) and when we have even more logged games, I will update the sheets. Furthermore, players are free to alter the parameters before initiating a campaign if they so wish (this is why I thought doing it in Excel rather than a PDF might be useful).


Another example - though here the battle results are made up for the sake of illustration

Conclusion:

There is nothing revolutionary here, and I'm really just trying to stand on the shoulders of Giulio. But I do think that all CCA-players should try playing the game in a campaign format. Keeping things as simple as possible (but maintaining balance in the final results!) can hopefully tempt more generals to try it out. I hope the sheets, and my rough calculations, are a useful contribution in this regard.

For my own part, I will be trying out the Peloponnesian War Campaign soon and I look forward to feel this special sense of "ownership" for the Spartan/Athenian cause. Will be epic, I'm sure!

P.S. Here are all the campaigns in PDF-format in case the .xlsx format causes problems for someone:

Index
Greco-Persian Wars
Peloponnesian War
Alexander the Great
Second Punic War
Third Servile War
Gallic Wars
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Rogers
United States
Yakima
WA
flag msg tools
badge
Receive with simplicity everything that happens to you.
Avatar
mb
I love this! Thanks!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark K.
Austria
Vienna
Vienna
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is gr at stuff. Many thanks! And I agree that we need more logged plays on the CCA website, especially for the expansion scenarios. So, please log your plays on the website, guys
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler Morgan
United States
Mission Viejo
California
flag msg tools
These campaigns are great! I picked up C&C: Ancients a few weeks ago and have already played through the full Second Punic War and Greco-Persian War scenarios. I look forward to playing the Peloponnesian War and Alexander the Great campaigns next.

For anyone curious, here are the results from the 2 played campaigns.
https://imgur.com/a/8XrT9PE

I held my own as Persia vs Greece, but got pretty destroyed as Carthage vs Rome.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stanislav
Belgium
Brussels
flag msg tools
badge
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Awesome stuff, Tyler! Happy to hear the campaign sheets were useful. Seems like some pretty epic campaigns too. Lots of tight battles.

Have you logged your results on commandsandcolors.net? Will be updating the sheets regularly to see if the adjusted banners need changing. Especially with the low-N scenarios (Gallic Wars, Peloponnesian War), I expect some shifts.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler Morgan
United States
Mission Viejo
California
flag msg tools
Sunnycool wrote:

Have you logged your results on commandsandcolors.net?

I have now! Not sure why I wasn't before. My opponent and I would guess what the win %'s were for each side after playing a scenario and then check on commandsandcolors.net.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tyler Morgan
United States
Mission Viejo
California
flag msg tools
Sunnycool, have you considered making similar campaign sheets for C&C: Napoleonics? I'll be picking it up soon and I'll miss having these campaigns!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stanislav
Belgium
Brussels
flag msg tools
badge
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've considered it, but I don't have the same CCN data (from Giulio) to "reverse-engineer", so I'm a bit reluctant to simply port the same regression from CCA to CCN. If and when Giulio posts his methodology, you bet I'll be making CCN campaign sheets like these :-)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls