An IDEA For A Tournament-feedback desired

[Treeburst155]

I'd like some feedback on a new tournament idea if anyone feels inclined.

A six player round robin tournament. Everybody plays everyone else one time. Nobody sees the same map twice. Custom maps with forces purchased in the editor.

Points accumulate from game to game and the highest total wins.

Now here's the new element. Players must purchase ALL their forces for the entire tourney before the tournament begins. You buy your "army" so to speak. You are allowed to field a maximum of 1,500 points per battle out of your "army" of say, 6000 points (5 battles x 1,200). At the end of each game I will look at the AAR screen and remove your casualties from your available "army". This new, reduced inventory of units is what you have to choose from for your next battle.

If a player does not think ahead to future battles he could wind up going into his last battle with a Kubelwagen and a green squad. LOL!! Players would not surrender since captured troops are gone forever. Players would try hard to withdraw if things were going poorly. Players would attempt to conserve their units. I could award new vehicles and guns to surviving crews. For example, for every 4 tank crew survivors you get a new tank for your army. Same thing with guns. Fraction would be held over for next time.

It would be time consuming to comb over the final map taking inventory of all the casualties, but it would be doable I think. What happens to a crew who exits the map? I may have no record of how many survived in that case. I'll have to experiment. Perhaps I could have a row or two of "safe" squares behind the setup zones that would be considered "off map" so the player wouldn't really have to exit anybody. This safe zone could be well hidden from LOS of the rest of the battle field using slopes and trees to keep the TAC AI from interfering I think.

So does anybody have an opinion on this. Is there any major problems you can think of? Why wouldn't this work?

[John Kettler]

Treeburst155,

If you really want to put the wind up the players, make them buy their "armies" blind, then play with random weather, time of day, etc.

It would be up to you to decide whether to let them see the map before a particular battle. I really like the basic concept. It's truly twisted and should elicit a chorus of groans and screams from your, er, volunteers. I'm presuming that the format will be one of attacking and defending? If so, will you reward good force conservation by letting players bring back their battle survivors several battles later? Doing something like that would put quite a crimp in most players'

battle calculations and provide a powerful incentive to keep shooting until an AFV is not only merely dead... That way, the immobilized King Tiger doesn't rise from the dead to smite one later.

Killing or capturing crews would also become important, as would preserving vital specialists like FOs. Seems to me that many historically correct things would automatically happen simply by virtue of your having instituted a minicampaign format.

Looks like a winner to me!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Cpl Carrot]

Interesting idea. My idea for the crews that fled the scene would be to count the alive units on the map and compare this to the OK amount in the AAR. A bit of generalisation and you could come up with an estimate of the crews condition. Of course the player could just note the crews/squads condition before they left the map and include this with their AAR. This can then be checked against the men OK stat to see if they are pulling a fast one on you. Of course they just may want one particular un back over another and fudge the numbers to balance out. How easy is it to adapt to one gun from another crew wise. Does any of this make sense???? I'll come back in a few hours after some much deserved sleeeeeep.......

[gredeker]

Sounds like a great idea to me in the abstract. It sort of reminds me of the additional strategic element in Red Barricades (and for those of you who don't know, its the best ASL :eek: module, dealing with a 30 day street fight in Stalingrad) where force conservation is a big factor.

Issues I see potentially causing at least a few headaches:

1. How to deal with casualties in squads. To what extent would a squad be restored if one or more members become casualties? Would you return all surviving squads to full strength (even if down to one man), or would you just condense the number of surviving infantry into full squads? What would be done with any remaining fraction? What about casualties among multiple types of squads?

2. How to deal with wounded weapons team members. Say you end up with multiple MG42 HMG teams each with only one man - would you combine the multiple teams into one full-strength team? Would you declare them immobile in the next game?

3. Tracking purchases/paperwork. The honor system will have to work for those who participate, and even then it will be a huge paperwork chore to keep track of everyone's available units - to say nothing of tracking different status of those units.

If the ground rules can be laid out clearly and the administrative overhead tolerated and the players remain honest then it will work.

One suggestion: If you go this route, I would suggest a smaller force pool, like 5000 points to play six battles of up to 1,500 points each. That way force conservation REALLY becomes an issue. I would think people would still bring 1,500 points worth of stuff to each party, but would probably hold at least a third in reserve to see if/when it's needed.

That's my $0.02.

I feel the need to go stare at my Red Barricades map board now... I wonder if Steve mentioned whether any of the large building tiles for CM:BB would have collapsed roofs and/or rooftop capability...

[Treeburst155]

Players would most definitely buy their armies blind at the beginning. They would then get their map for their first battle and choose from their inventory units that would best suit that map (up to 1,500 pts.). At the end all their casualties will be stricken from their inventory. Any survivors could fight in the next battle if they wanted since they would still be in the player's inventory. I would give every four surviving crewmen a vanilla Sherman or Mark IV. It's impossible to keep track of what type of vehicle a crew once manned. I would probably lump gun crews in with the vehicle crews. The player would know that every four surviving crewmembers results in a new Regular Sherman or a Mark IV. The crewmen could be from any unit that produces a crew when the weapon is destroyed or abandoned.

Re-using abandoned vehicles would help the owner (if it was an uber tank) but his opponent would not have to finish it off because he won't play that person again. He would just be helping the next guy by blasting the tank until it was destroyed. So, to keep it as simple as possible I would just award vanilla tanks for every 4 crewmembers exited. Maybe I'll have to change that to five or six crewmembers. I'll have to play around and see what seems best.

[Treeburst155]

"1. How to deal with casualties in squads. To what extent would a squad be restored if one or more members become casualties? Would you return all surviving squads to full strength (even if down to one man), or would you just condense the number of surviving infantry into full squads? What would be done with any remaining fraction? What about casualties among multiple types of squads? "

I think I would have to count the suvivors on the final screen rather than the dead. I would tally up all the survivors for the different types of units and make whole fresh units available to the player for his next battle. Fractions would be carried over and used when possible down the road. For the last battle I would take the fractions and do the best I could to represent them for the final battle.

I think it would only be manageable if players did not actually exit anyone off the map. The "safe zone" behind their setup zone and along the sides perhaps would be the way to go.

The player would get a fresh updated inventory of his "army" after each battle. There would be no honor system involved as long as the players did not exit the map with anybody (safe zone). It would be tedious, time consuming work, but I think it would be doable. Players might have to wait a few days to get their updated inventory is all.

I would have the players' inventory. I would place his chosen units from that inventory on the map and move them to active status on his inventory. At the end I would see what remains of his "active" units, make new units available to him from his survivors and keep track of fractions. It would be work but I really think it would be doable.

I agree that the player should be limited to only 5,000 points for five battles. Really make him conserve!

[George-III]

Treeburst,

I have an Idea of how you could do this:

1. Create the battle as an OPERATION with TWO battles. The first battle would last the normal 30 turns, the second "battle" would only last 1 or so turns.

2. The players would play the first battle just like normal, capturing VL's, retreating units, etc... After the end of the first battle both players would go on to the setup phase of the second battle and save the game at that point. At the end of the first battle the computer brings back surviving units and repaired tanks for the setup phase of the second battle so no guess work is needed on your part. Just look at the units in the setup zones on each players saved game.

We will have to do some experimenting but I think this may work.

[Treeburst155]

You know, George III, that might just work. It would sure save a lot of time too. I've never messed with creating an operation before. Like you said, some experiments need to be done.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

This will be a bold undertaking and it sounds very interesting in concept. I think that in order to have decent force purchases it would be a good idea for each player to purchase an army, but each player will be allocated an army to use - it may or may not be the one he picked. He may end up facing his own force purchase! This would eliminate any biased or unbalanced purchases and each player would be forced to be more realistic/conservative in the purchase knowing that he may be facing that army later. The players would then have to make do with what they get - this would add a new dimention to the tourney IMHO. But i doubt it would be popular with the players in the tourney Its a wild card though.

CDIC

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Thats a great suggestion by George, i think the second battle must be one day later in order for any AFV to be repaired, if its Day to Night, or Dawn to Dusk no AFV will be salvaged. At least thats how i think it will work!

CDIC

[Treeburst155]

Very interesting idea, CDIC, having the players pick an army but not be able to use it. I don't think they would go for it though. I'd probably pick a really crummy army since chances are, somebody else would have to use it. LOL!!

I was thinking of supplying generic armies picked by me consisting of a wide range of unit types. Every player would start with the same exact army, but it would be big enough and diverse enough that players still wouldn't know what they would be facing in any given battle. They wouldn't know what their opponent lost in his previous battles or what he chose to field in his battle against them. One generic army for each side would really add to the balance. It would be easier on me too I think.

There is a problem I just thought of. Half the players would have to be Allied for ALL their games, the other half the Germans for ALL the games. This means players can't play

everybody else. You could have a winning side and a winning player! Each of the three Allied players plays every German player once. This would give the tourney a total of nine games. We would have a champion player AND a winning side by totaling all the players' points on each side. It would be better to have 5 players on each side so that players have to conserve their forces through five games.

We would have 10 people involved, but each would only have to play five games. The team aspect of it is a new twist that could be fun (necessary too).

[SuperTed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George-III:

Treeburst,

I have an Idea of how you could do this:

1. Create the battle as an OPERATION with TWO battles. The first battle would last the normal 30 turns, the second "battle" would only last 1 or so turns.

2. The players would play the first battle just like normal, capturing VL's, retreating units, etc... After the end of the first battle both players would go on to the setup phase of the second battle and save the game at that point. At the end of the first battle the computer brings back surviving units and repaired tanks for the setup phase of the second battle so no guess work is needed on your part. Just look at the units in the setup zones on each players saved game.

We will have to do some experimenting but I think this may work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G3,

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but there are no VLs or point totals in operations.

[George-III]

Uh-oh, Super Ted is right.

There are no points or VL's in operations, I forgot about that. We still might be able to make this work though. What you could do is set it up as a 'Destroy' Operation and use the last turn Morale value instead of a point value. This may change the strategy or have some unintended consequenses so we will have to run some experiments to find out. I havent made very many Operations so I'm not sure if it will be ultimatly possible but with a little creativity I still think we can do it.

[edgars]

First off, good idea, i'd like to participate.

But I have a question about force type - will it be "Unrestricted" or "Combined Arms" or...?

[Wreck]

The one thing I would be concerned about is a snowball effect, where a player gets beat up in his first few battles and is therefore effectively out of it for the rest. I.e., assume I have a 5000 point allied force, perhaps with 1200 or so points of tanks. And say I bring 500 points of tanks to each of my first two battles, and lose them each time. Then I am likely to have big problems against remaining players, and doubly so if the other side is allowed to communicate with each other about the amount and type of losses they have inflicted on me.

You might say that I should not have risked so many tanks in my first two battles. And of course to a large extent this problem (or the threat of it) is what the tourney is about. But I do think it might be wise to allow some kind of replacement between battles, to damp down on this problem. For example, instead of 5000 points initially for 5 battles, you might have 4000 points initially with 200 points of buying after each battle. Or maybe 4500+100/battle. This would allow the players to reinforce any really weak spot that had appeared.

[Ben Galanti]

This sounds like a pretty cool idea. The only concern I have is would players be too timid? Since, if you and your opponent beat each other into a bloody pulp, it doesn't really help either of you, it just helps whoever you play down the road.

I'm all for force preservation, I hate playing down to the last squad, it just doesn't seem realistic to me. But, it might be tough to find the right balance between preservation and action so as not to have boring games.

Ben

[Wreck]

Another thing you should probably give some thought to is artillery. You do not want to have a "thin" zone at the back for fleeing troops because otherwise the opponent will be tempted to drop arty on them. Or else you have rules forbidding using artillery anywhere near the back of the board, which has its own problems.

Instead, just make the maps extend considerably back from the setup zones, so there is plenty of room to flee to.

[The_Capt]

Treeburst,

I think this is a helluva idea!!

I think it would simplify thing drastically by just calling a Gun, Tank or crewed weapon "gone" once it is knocked out.

To balance that and squad or partial squad will be brought back up to 100% for the next battle.

If a unit is withdrawn or knocked off the map it is eliminated. This will discourage "edge flank crawls".

It is very simple but will generate a few new considerations:

Force Conservation and long term planning. Particularly if you ration out "big guns" and tanks. When to commit them will depend on who you are playing. I think after action reports should include detail playstyle of each player. Each player should "spill their guts" about the other. This will mean people will have to think about who they fight next but there is still enough uncertainty to make it interesting.

Blood Lust, to really go after that last guy in a squad cause you don't want it coming back.

Desperate battles: I have a 6 pounder and a canteen versus a Tank troop and Infantry Coy!!!!

The only other suggestion I could make is to make this a "Blood Feud". IE get rid of the VLs and go on blood alone.

[The_Capt]

Another idea,

Just thought of it but in a single round-robin, you could get into a situation where "I will leave more for the other guys" So a double round-robin where the first guy you play is the last guy you play may be an idea.

It will add motivation to "Takin Care of Business" cause you have to fight again.

[Enoch]

In theory I think this is a great idea. It has some obvious kinks that need ironing out.

The issue if players being allied or german not being able to play one another is the first that came to mind. You could get around that by having each player purchase an allied army and a german army. Then every one could play everyone else.

Someone else raised the issue of a player that gets badly beat in one game. That will affect how well they can do in later battles possibly upsetting the balance in a tourney.

Again, I think this is an intersting idea and I hope you can fiugre out a workable way to do it. You are a glutton for punishment though aren't you Treeburst.

I just had another thought. You should probably get in touch with the guy(s) running something liek the CM Meta Campaign. They obviously must deal with this issues and they might be able to provide some useful insight and advice.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

[Treeburst155]

Thanks, guys! Lots of good stuff here for me to think about. This is what I was hoping for. My wheels are really spinning now.

[DekeFentle]

Some real quick thoughts and comments.

I really like the idea Tree. I might be able to set up a pretty comprehensive Excel spreadsheet to assist with the huge paperwork pile your going to run into. No promises but I’m somewhat of a guru with that app and I can probably ease your workload with it.

Someone mentioned the idea of re-enforcements purchasable between battles. This is a GREAT idea. It rewards the player who conserves forces and keeps the person who gets hit hard a couple battles in a row in the game so to speak. I would go so far as to say reduce the initial force to 4000 points and give everyone 500 points after each battle that can be used or accumulated for unit purchase.

Caveat to the tourney would be speed of play. Players will need/want to finish each battle before starting another. Perhaps a smaller scale would be better?

Regarding fractional squads, perhaps it would be appropriate to take the total number of men left in squad types and then round up. This would represent men returned to duty or not really hurt in the battle.

EG I start with a Coy of Allied 44 infantry (9x10) and at the end of the battle I have a total of 63 men left. I get back 7 full squads.

How would you handle HQ’s? I would suggest allowing the player at his option to fill them out from the ranks of surviving squad members before the round up. This would represent “field Promotions”. *shrug* Slam me on this one, I’m shooting from the hip.

Crews, isn’t it possible to identify a crews weapon by cross-referencing the leader name with the weapon after initial purchase? I don’t know, again just a thought. With the proper tracking system in place I think this could be done. If it works you could handle crews per squads above.

Wouldn’t it be possible to cycle through all the units on each side with the + - keys once you got the end game map? That would certainly make record keeping more accurate and easier.

This really sounds like fun to me I hope the positive responses continue.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: DekeFentle ]

[Kingfish]

Hmmm...

A tourney that forces players to purchase well balanced forces and use realistic, common sense tactics. A tourney where the 'Go for broke' VL rush will more than likely cost you the game. A tourney where force preservation and maintaing an adequate reserve become more important than kill stats. A tourney where a succesful defense today means a better chance for a succesful attack tomorrow. A tourney where a player, used to ordering suicide missions without a second thought, must now think about what the consequences are.

Nah...who's going to want that

[Treeburst155]

Deke,

Thanks! You've got my wheels turning again. I'll respond as soon as I get a chance.

Kingfish,

It could be real good, eh?

Some responses to questions/comments above:

Wreck wrote:

For example, instead of 5000 points initially for 5 battles, you might have 4000 points initially with 200 points of buying after each battle. Or maybe 4500+100/battle. This would allow the players to reinforce any really weak spot that had appeared. **End Quote.

I think 4,200 point "armies" with 200 pts. of reinforcements/replacements purchased before battles 2,3,4, and 5 is an excellent idea.

Ben Galanti wrote:

This sounds like a pretty cool idea. The only concern I have is would players be too timid? Since, if you and your opponent beat each other into a bloody pulp, it doesn't really help either of you, it just helps whoever you play down the road. **End Quote

If both players are timid an early cease fire may result with the game ending in a draw. I don't really see this as a problem. A bit boring perhaps, but that's the breaks. A timid player against an aggressive player would suffer a crushing defeat as far as the points are concerned. Remember, in the end, points determine the winner; not who has the biggest surviving army for the final battle. There would be 4 large VLs on every map, CENTRALLY located to assure that timid play results in big points for an aggressive opponent. If saving your troops for the next battle is your overriding concern then you will probably suffer some early catastrophic defeats which will probably cost you the "crown". Players will have to weigh the situation carefully.

I suppose it is possible ALL players would just go for draws in the early games but I think it unlikely. There's no sense in going into the last game with more than 1,300 points in your "army" since the max that can be fielded for any game is 1,500 and you have the 200 points of replacements.

Wreck wrote:

Another thing you should probably give some thought to is artillery. You do not want to have a "thin" zone at the back for fleeing troops because otherwise the opponent will be tempted to drop arty on them. Or else you have rules forbidding using artillery anywhere near the back of the board, which has its own problems.

Instead, just make the maps extend considerably back from the setup zones, so there is plenty of room to flee to. **End Quote.

This is a good idea. Rather than "safe zones", which are a problem since it would be impossible to prevent players from moving into their opponent's safe zones (or firing into them); there would just be plenty of map behind the setup zones with good cover so units have a good chance of withdrawing successfully. Any units exiting off the neutral sides would be considered eliminated for purposes of players' inventory.

The_Capt wrote:

Just thought of it but in a single round-robin, you could get into a situation where "I will leave more for the other guys" So a double round-robin where the first guy you play is the last guy you play may be an idea.

It will add motivation to "Takin Care of Business" cause you have to fight again. ** End Quote

Leaving more for the other guys will reduce your points at the end of the game. Also, your opponents could do the same to you. A double-round robin would involve too many games. As it is players will probably want to play one game at a time. Five games will take at least 5 months to finish. This is a problem I'm thinking about.

Enoch wrote:

The issue if players being allied or german not being able to play one another is the first that came to mind. You could get around that by having each player purchase an allied army and a german army. Then every one could play everyone else. ** End Quote.

This does away with the team aspect and also would require an even number of games be played by each player. Even if we went to six games (3 from each side per player) players would only have to think ahead to two more battles. This may not be a bad thing, but I think having to plan ahead for 5 battles would be more challenging. I think we can find enough players that are willing to play one side or the other exclusively.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The player would know that every four surviving crewmembers results in a new Regular Sherman or a Mark IV. The crewmen could be from any unit that produces a crew when the weapon is destroyed or abandoned. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I knew I'd get a Sherman for every mortar

I manage to get abandoned...

... well... the temptation would be high..