Nordic Wannabee Tournament

[Dogface21]

Man, reading through this thread, Im really dissapointed I cant get in on the action, and my apologies to my ( SUPREME ) section. I was excited about starting some real compition, but on Friday night, my date, er, computer booted up and said: PLEASE INSERT BOOT DISK.

C:

So I typed:

C: BillGates/SucksRocks/AllDay

And the whole system crashed! Who wouldve thought he had such forthought. OK, Im done, Ill see y'all whenever I get a new HD, OS, and all the other crap Im going to have to buy ( AGAIN). If I did'nt own CM, I would'nt even bother, but scince I do, its TOP priority!

[Treeburst155]

Dogface21,

You still have awhile before the tourney begins. If you can get back up and running within 2-3 weeks you'll still have plenty of time to finish your games. Do you want me to hold your slot for awhile?

Treeburst155 out.

[The Commissar]

Just bumping this up a bit. All my opponents that can play have responded, and I have 3 PBEM's and 1 TCP/IP. Bring on the 8th of Nov!

[Ricochet]

Is there any guestamation on the size and length of the scenarios. Are some huge others tiny that sort of thing.

[The Commissar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ricochet:

Is there any guestamation on the size and length of the scenarios. Are some huge others tiny that sort of thing.<hr></blockquote>

I was also interested. Treeburst?

[Treeburst155]

Nabla and a mathematician friend of his have decided the schedule is optimized as much as possible. They had a computer running for hours testing different schedules. So, your schedules will remain as previously posted.

I have no idea of the size of three of the scenarios. The two I have seen are medium.

I think November 8th may be a bit optimistic for a start date, although I'm not sure. As soon as I get the scenarios and create the secured versions we can begin. Everything else is ready.

Dogface, are you out there?! Should I hold your slot for awhile?

Treeburst155 out.

[Nabla]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I think November 8th may be a bit optimistic for a start date, although I'm not sure. <hr></blockquote>

In the opening message we announced November 11th as the D-day. We're still aiming for that (although the recent schedule optimality investigation did put us on a tight schedule).

[Massattack]

Treeburst,thank you for all your hard work in organising this tournament.

To my opponents in Section 2 (Jack_Trap, Thumpre, A1steaks, Ricochet, and White 4), looking forward to blowing you all to hell and beyond. This is my first tournament, so more likely I will get to see hell rather than you!

I have read the list of "gamey" play, and will let each of you know where I stand before we begin combat! I agree with most of it,I would not use dehorsed AFV crews, or teams that have lost their weapons, for scouting, or rushing flags. I will not set fire to unoccupied tiles (intentionally!)

I like the idea of playing to "would you give this order in real life?"

Most of all looking forward to some fun and meeting new opponents! I live in GMT timezone, and have never played TCP/IP but would be willing to give it a try.

Not sure how to best approach the order of play, but will play 2 games simultaneously.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Massattack:

Most of all looking forward to some fun and meeting new opponents! I live in GMT timezone, and have never played TCP/IP but would be willing to give it a try.

<hr></blockquote>

There is no country living in the GMT timezone

[Cpl Carrot]

I think he meant 0 GMT, being from the UK and all

[THumpre]

Okay, since everyone else seems to have chimed in on the "gameyness/nongameyness" issue I will chime in. Aren't you all so glad? Thought so, so quiet in the back, down in front and here it is.

I'm not gamey. I lose way too often to even be considereed "gamey wannabe"

I don't think I do any of the listed Evil Eight, cept maybe the one where you charge straight ahead with your infantry at the emnemy and that's only because i can't think of anything more creative to do. I just hope to have fun and meet some more good opponents.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Hi Treeburst et al. This may appear mercenary on my part & if considered so... TOO BAD! I just wanted to say that I would be happy to be a replacement for Dogface21 if he is unable to commit to the tournament. I always play PBEM but am pretty reliable with at least 1 turn a day.

If you're happy to include me Treeburst then I'd be very keen to participate. My email address is jimbo@picknowl.com.au and although Australia is about as far away from the Scandinavian countries you can get, so be it.

Regards

Jim R.

[White4]

I think all of us in section 2 are going section 8 just waiting for nov 8 or 11th...Its going to be very enjoyable!

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Treeburst,

Just wanted to update you on my brain-cramp,

I figured out how to handle .txt files through hotmail. So, not to make waves, lets go back to

my Hotmail account please.

kurtlindquist@hotmail.com

now zip or .txt are both alright!

[Treeburst155]

Warhammer,

Your address change back to Hotmail has been noted. The original section list on page two is correct.

Kanonier Reichmann,

If I do not hear from Dogface21 in twenty four hours you are in.

Treeburst155 out.

[Ricochet]

Just a little note on gamey.

People talk about gamey is setting fire to empty tiles without waiting for the enemy to occupy the location.

I’d like to put forth a hypothetical situation.

Lets say you have a platoon of engineers with flamethrowers dug in on either side of a road, on a reverse slope, just at the exit of a town. They have a daisy chain across the road to prevent any vehicles from passing them and getting onto a bridge that’s just behind them. There’s also a schreck set in ambush targeting the area right before the chain. It is the ultimate ambush setup. No one can spot any of these men from anywhere on the map unless they come within 20 meters at the top of the slope exiting the town and onto the bridge (where you hope to massacre them). Everywhere that is but the last two story house just at the exit of the town and only from the second story. Now, in real life, would it be possible that an officer would tell the flamethrower crew to set fire to the house to insure the group could not be spotted prematurely before they could trip the ambush?

Yes that was long winded for “Is there ever a specific tactical situation where an isolated target could, should and would be put to the torch before the enemy arrived there?”

(Thumpre’s saying “Hey that’s wasn’t a hypothetical situation you gamey bastich.” but I don’t remember if I waited for him to get to the 2and level or just torched the house with area fire while he was on the bottom floor)

Input anyone?

[THumpre]

Sure, I'll give ya imput ya gamey bastich.

All kidding aside that "hypothetical example" was IMOHO a great use of equipment and terrain. He had to deny the crossroads to my troops and he made it pretty much impossible for me to use it Nothing gamey about that(even if it is Riccochet )

[Jack Trap]

The point of the gameyness points #1-8 are not hard fast rules by which to play. They are themselves

general tactics that were unlikely to be employed during WW2. Specific situations will come up

from time to time in they would be used. It sounds like you've described one of those situations.

Remember, the point is not that you are disallowed to use ANY of these tactics, rather, it is to notify your opponent(s) of your play style before the battle begins- that's it.

For example, I will sometimes use crews (with ammo) for light recon work and include them in

reinforcement groups. I think that this works for me and is not gamey, but since a general consensus

holds that it is-

I tell my opponents.

Now if you make a habit of torching key squares on the map, then say so. Just because you found a

specific situation that made sense to do so, you are not a gamey player per se.

[Lopaka]

The problem with your response Mr. Trap is that you are not going to know if the perfect non-gamey torching of a square is going to present itself until you are already into the game. You may have said you consider torching of unoccupied squares gamey, but then the situation as described by Ricochet becomes available. I'm assuming you will have set your gameyness rules with your opponents before you ever see the map. If you told your opponent, that you won't torch unoccupied squares he's probably going to call foul if you go ahead and do it just because you decided the situation warranted it and you didn't feel you were being gamey.

So maybe the answer to all this is to say you agree with, for example, #1-4, 7 and 8. You plan on using tactics 5-6. But you will use #1-4, 7 and 8 if a defensible situation (like described in Ricochet's post) is reasonable and un-gamey.

I for one will expect my opponent to police himself in respect to our predecided gameyness rule set. If he should break our decided code, I expect him to have a reasonable reason for doing so. If he does not, he's only hurting himself in the big picture. I will be satisfied in having fought the good fight.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Lopaka ]</p>

[Jack Trap]

Well Mr. Lopaka (if that is your real name ),

I not did mean to imply that we would be restricted by how we define ourselves with the gameyness points #'s 1-8.

These are not rules, I think that has been stated several times already. These are points for discussion for two strangers that MAY have very different ideas of what is responsible game play, and therefor have different ideas as to what to expect.

It's a proactive appoach to conflict resolution, which is a bit ironic since we're discussing a game of war. So there.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Yes guys, Mr-Johnson is ready when you guys are.

[Lopaka]

Am I the only one to find that last post mildly disturbing?

[Lopaka]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Originally posted by Jack Trap:

I not did mean to imply that we would be restricted by how we define ourselves with the gameyness points #'s 1-8. <hr></blockquote>

My point, Mr. Trap (if that's YOUR real name), is that if you are "defining" yourself one way and you act another way, you may offend your opponent. That's why it is important to let your opponent know beforehand that there may be some elasticity in your adherence to your definitions.

We are agreeing with each other (imagine me agreeing with a gamey, tank confusing and then killing bastich like yourself). I just wanted to point out that not only people's definitions of gameyness might differ, but also their feeling about whether they are setting up rules or merely guidelines within any particular battle. One person may feel you have just set up unbreakable rules of conduct while another might feel that they are general guidelines of conduct. It's important to discuss that as well as the specifics.

[a1steaks]

So what you are saying is I probably shouldn't light the whole map on fire in the first 2 turns right?

You know Treeburst probably won't include any flame units after all this discussion anyway.

[Jack Trap]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lopaka:

My point, Mr. Trap (if that's YOUR real name), is that if you are "defining" yourself one way and you act another way, you may offend your opponent. That's why it is important to let your opponent know beforehand that there may be some elasticity in your adherence to your definitions.

<hr></blockquote>

You are right about that.

But don't blame me for confusing that tank of yours. It was trying to be a Greyhound but it ran like a dachshund!!