On my soap box once again :smoke:
I'm convinced that the main reason a tournament fails is the length of time it takes to play.
I am currently running a couple of tournaments that have attempted to address this lengthy time commitment, but their is no real solution.
Since most of us play multiple games at the same time, I'm giving some consideration to running a tournament wherein one plays 2 or 3 mirror games (small scenario's) at once. I can visualize a tournament of this type being completed in 3-4 months.
I've got another idea for a unique "team" tournament in which a person makes a move and his partner makes the next move. No communication allowed between partners. Your partner simply looks at the scenario and does what he thinks is best based upon the given position at that time.
Any ideas with regard to some different/unique types of tournaments are greatly welcomed.
Pat
I don't think the length of time is the main reason tournaments have problems.......been my experience that tournaments do not bring out the best in a lot of players.......vowed years ago to never play in one again.
VE
Montana Grizz Wrote:I've got another idea for a unique "team" tournament in which a person makes a move and his partner makes the next move. No communication allowed between partners. Your partner simply looks at the scenario and does what he thinks is best based upon the given position at that time.
Hi Pat,
it sounds strange to me, when i'm NOT allowed to exchange information/plans with my teammate. And are both members allowed to watch the replay ??
Remko
Hello Remko,
I already don't like my original idea.
How about a team game where partners alternate moves, but can discuss the scenario? It would be just like one on one except it would be two versus two?
Just throwing some ideas out there for your consideration and attempting to create some excitement in regard to tournament play.
One idea is to use one large scenario and divide into a team game. Instead of splitting forces and each player has an independent command the sides would be split into the overall commander (Corps, Division, etc) and his subordinate commands.
This is the weak point because most will want to play. Maybe the overall commander also directly controls the reserves. There will also need to be a referee.
The way this game would be played is that all orders must be sent from the main HQ to subordinate units. The commander sends his orders through the referee because the commander can only send orders when his HQ is in supply and only to those subordinate HQs that are both in range and also in supply.
If the overall HQ is in supply and sends an order to a subordinate HQ that isn't in supply then the referee would hold onto the message until such time as the subordinate HQ's radiomen can set up and process their traffic. This will slow down the game some so can only be used in longer scenarios.
I don't foresee doing this below the subordinate commanders (i.e. Corps sends to the subordinate player's Divisional HQ and now the Divisional HQ has to follow the same process to send to all his Regiments, then down to Battalions, etc). This would be more realistic but would really slow down the game.
The end result would be less of an "omnipresent" intelligence directing a side that has perfect knowledge of all his forces, even down to the recon unit spotting on the far side of the map. The overall commander will be frustrated at times by not having the intent of his orders followed or misunderstood.
As for the time problem, no problem. That's where the referee steps in. After a predetermined amount of time the referee steps in, ends the turn, and if a lot of the side hasn't finished playing then that reflects on that sides motivation and command and control. I think that would also add an element of realism. Lot's of fighting will be going on for a vital village but for some reason the panzer battalion 2 clicks away never moves to help....
Cole,
Tried most of those conceptes when developing campaign games. First off no one wants to be just a supreme commander and only give orders. Second when you enforce the time limit most players just quit.
VE
Von Earlmann Wrote:Cole,
Tried most of those conceptes when developing campaign games. First off no one wants to be just a supreme commander and only give orders. Second when you enforce the time limit most players just quit.
VE
Understand that the weak point is finding volunteers for the commander only giving orders. That's why I said the overall commander might be in charge of the reserves. That' still probably not enough for a lot of people but I bet there would be a few willing to take a turn as commander if they could have a later go at subordinate commander.
The time limit is a problem but I do think there are enough CS addicts with time on their hands that can produce a reasonable turn rate. I know a few guys that can knock out the turns.
All that being said I agree with you. I've been in a couple of campaign games in which the turn rates went from fast to non-existent.
Unfortunately, I think it is absolutely vital to screen the players in any huge team game. Some think they will (or can) commit to the time it will take but cannot through no fault of their own. Some think it will be fun but then find it's not. Others just don't like it when their side takes a loss or higher HQs have to issue orders that relegate their area to a secondary front.
I like the idea of it, and have loved playing in them (especially Earl's). I think it's a very tough nut to crack and I'm not sure there is a good answer. Maybe a large number of field commanders on both sides, each in command of a smaller unit (and the supereme commander gets to command one too - being smaller units, his tactical control will not have an unduly disruptive influence on the game). If one unit's commander quits or is unavailable, one of the other commanders (not the supreme) on that side would get one day to make the move or the turn would be processed without moves from that side. There could even be a rotation if needed. I think that might help keep turn rate going. It is my observation that except as noted above, the biggest detractor for huge team games is turn rate decline. Hard to maintain interest.
Hmmmmm
LR
I'd like to see a vet paired with a newbie. I'd also like to see the newbie getting to pick the vet they want as a teammate, with the Tourny Master arbitrating picks. I don't think they have to be those large scenarios made for team play either. The vet could take a lesser role in smaller scenarios, plotting artillery, for instance. Or he could take armor over infantry for one scenario, and switch for the next. The idea would be to help educate new guys and get them participating a bit more.
Larry -
An idea I have is if a commander is killed (the guy quits, doesn't send his turn on time, etc) is that his command will continue to follow the last order issued by the higher command until a new commander is chosen (the old leader unit is removed from the OOB by the referee and a new leader unit must be moved to the command's HQ). The new leader unit can be another existing unit or a new leader at higher command is generated by the referee at the higher HQ.
Scud -
I like that idea. With a larger team game the newer player can be given his own command and just as in real life will gradually be entrusted with greater responsibilities as he gains experience. If a team campaign is started the new player will learn "on the job".