The Blitzkrieg Posted December 7, 2000 Share Posted December 7, 2000 GENERAL BLITZKRIEG FROM THE NCCMAHQ: Gentlemen, The results of the final battle at Wilts has been received. It's confirmed that TROOPER is to be championed with an Allied Major Victory, in his battle with BIGDOG at Wiltz. The After Action Report of this battle will be sent (in short) as a separate document, please review... This latest report will conclude round-1 of play. The following table lists "mach-ups" for round-2 and is separated by divisions of play. Please note the following table: ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________DIVISION ONE______________________________ TROOPER(axis)----------------------VS----------------------TINK (allied) GENERAL BLITZKRIEG(axis)-----------VS---------------------ROMMEL(allied) ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________DIVISION TWO______________________________ SEAHAWK(axis)----------------------VS-------------------ROCKDAWG(allied) GONZOATTACKER(axis)----------------VS--------------------BIGDAWG(allied) ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________END___________________________________ *To ensure fairness, all names were pulled from a hat and a coin flipped to determine forces of play... STYLE OF PLAY: THE RANKS HAVE SPOKEN! With the Dawn of TCP/IP, SEAHAWK has presented me with a idea for round-2 and future tourneys that will not only eliminate scenario bias, predictability, and imbalance, but will also increase the dependence for a General to be more creative, tactical, and strategic. This of course is achieved through using "Quick Battles," where one may hand pick their units and personalize their resources for battle... In SEAHAWK's words: Concerning future plans: I think a more realistic way of planning our future engagements is to play a blind scenario. I already participated in such multi-player games with CM and believe me: having no idea of what is going to face our forces adds to the suspense and realism. I found myself choosing my actions from what I already knew about the scenario and the initial forces setup and the game is forcibly biased. My suggestion for future engagements is to either have a Quick Battle generated by CM with fixed points/forces for both sides at time of encounter or having a brand new scenario each time (this was the way I have been playing in previous experience: we had a Master of battles who was preparing the next scenario as we were playing a sort of campaign with each scenario ideally following the results of previous battles: a sort of hand made operation. Any thoughts on this issue? Seahawk...END *BIGDAWG has also agreed to this idea. I'm in full support of SEAHAWK's idea and am recommending "Quick Battles" are to be used for round-2 and there after. Point information, # of turns, weather, map size, etc., will be fixed. That information will be coming to you soon, but for now grab a partner and practice your skills at Quick Battle...and know your military! SECOND DIVISION PLAY & THE WILD CARD: Many players have requested that a "wild card" should be offered to further enhance second division play. I have no qualms about this idea, in fact, all I have received from other players is support. So, unless I get some strong negative feedback the "wild card" is a go! Here is the idea as presented to me by ROCKDAWG: My suggestion (ROCKDAWG), All round 1 losers play off... mix the 4 losers and have each play one game. The winners of that game will play off to have a round 1 lower div champ. At the end of round two, there will be two losers... the lowest point scorer in round two will play the lower div champ for round 1. Then the winner of that plays the top seeded player of lower div for round two. For round 3, the lower div champ should play the 2nd seed for div 1/round 3. The winner of that game plays the top seed for the championship. That way the top seeded player has to play less games than the either the second seed or the wildcard and risks less. Is that enough steps? Should be shouldn't it for 8 initial play? ROUND-2 LAUNCH: Round-2 will begin after fixed parameters are formulated. I'm going to allow for some "down time" so players can get familiar with their army, Quick Battles, and TCP/IP style of play. Launch will not begin for another week or so. Official launch starts when a list of parameters is received from me via-E mail...In the mean time get out and practice! Questions answered at: x_maximum_x@hotmail.com More to come, General Blitzkrieg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blitzkrieg Posted December 7, 2000 Author Share Posted December 7, 2000 More ideas and input from Rockdawg: Send your thoughts Blitz- --------------------------------------------- Sorry I couldn't just reply to all... Can't get Agent to do it easily. If you could broadcast this to your mailing list, I'd appreciate it. >STYLE OF PLAY: >THE RANKS HAVE SPOKEN! > > With the Dawn of TCP/IP, SEAHAWK has presented me with a idea for round-2 and future tourneys that will not only eliminate scenario bias, predictability, and imballance, but will also increase the dependence for a General to be more creative, tactical, and strategic. This of course is achieved through using "Quick Battles," where one may hand pick their units and personalize their resources for battle... >In SEAHAWKS words: > > Concerning future plans: I think a more realistic way of planning our future engagements is to play a blind scenario. I already participated in such multi-player games with CM and believe me: having no idea of what is going to face our forces adds to the suspense and realism. Blind, defiantely. Like the idea of not knowing what's around the corner... but the thought of a QB makes me pause just a bit. We've all played QB's where one player sets parameters in an unbalanced (not even out of malice, but still... small battles with large maps... very long low point games, etc...) way or the odd weird map that just favors one side. Like the more even matchup of a set scenario. blind is good, though I did enjoy discussing Wiltz with others... "What was your setup?" Ideas on midgame... When should the germans show the armor... Allied Arty use... blah blah blah. Was fun partly becasue everyone knew the scenario well, but also becasue we all had a common frame of reference. Hope we could keep that part. A blind set scenario would aid that. > > Master of battles who was preparing the next scenario as we were playing a sort of campaign with each scenario ideally following the results of previous battles: a sort of hand made operation. Sounds intriging if someone can be found. Or maybe just finding a scenario that no one's played from WBW or someone known to make good, balaced games. > >SECOND DIVISION PLAY & THE WILD CARD: > > Many players have requested that a "wild card" should be offered to further enhance second division play. I have no qualms about this idea, in fact, all I have received from other players is support. So, unless I get some strong negative feedback the "wild card" is a go! Here is the idea as presented to me by ROCKDAWG: > > My suggestion (ROCKDAWG), This guy's a genius! > -- Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves. - Eric Hoffer clay.cahill@ intel.com cacahill@pacbell.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyStrike Posted December 7, 2000 Share Posted December 7, 2000 I'm not in this tournament but be aware there is a bug with the computer choosing armored vehicles in 1.1b with Combined Arms selections...it tends not to choose any. There is a thread on this somewhere about. Cheers, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 7, 2000 Share Posted December 7, 2000 For the record, I would support the use of recommended user-created scenarios over quick-battles.. Usually it means that the scenario has been designed a little more realistically or creatively than the straight-out slugfests of a QB. NTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted December 7, 2000 Share Posted December 7, 2000 I'm thinking that I should change my ICQ nick... Wasn't there a rockdog on here sometime in the past? Do't want to be confusing.. Anyway, once again, QB not the way to go for a tourney. Same scenario's a better plan. Perhaps get a third party to select one that no one's played? Clay- [This message has been edited by Compassion (edited 12-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 I think the key word is "blind" . I think there is nothing wrong with QB or 3rd party "blind" scenarios (there is that word again ). It is very hard to find a well balanced scenario. Just my 2¢ And Trooper you kicked my butt fair & square <Salute> Big Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts