If you lose the first game and your opponent captured all the flags it will put you in a very tough situation because now the best thing you can do is tie, because either you capture all the flags to tie or you can win the match missing 1 flag and still lose the total flag count, in that case a tie in wins would actually be a loss in flags.. everyone ok with that? that doesn't really sit well with me, a tiebreaking 3rd game is the only way to be fair, the person with the most kills picks the side.
edit: but then again i dont really feel too strongly about it, so whatever you guys want to do is fine.
Tournament
Moderators: Slitherine Core, BA Moderators
-
Amaz_Ed
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:22 am
- Location: Shropshire, UK
Something that we used to do in a Close Combat 4 league that I used to play in was to play just one game, but the 'challenger' would choose a map and then his opponent would look at the forces available and choose which side he wanted to play. This added to the overall challenge by forcing both players to consider the balance of the map, but also the tactics that they liked to use and how they would apply to that map.
The system was probably easier in CC4 simply because the editor was much easier to use (not better, it was very limited in scope) and so most players had numerous maps that they had created themselves. If such a system were to be considered for a tournament in BBCBA at this time maybe the organizer should designate a set of maps that are useable in each round and nominate a player in each match up (the first name drawn?) as the 'challenger'.
I appreciate that this is a rather radical change to what has already discussed, but I would be interested to hear what others think of this system even if disregarded for this first tournament. I was wondering whther there would be players interested in taking part in a 'ladder' style league such as the ones available here; http://www.myleague.com/
The system was probably easier in CC4 simply because the editor was much easier to use (not better, it was very limited in scope) and so most players had numerous maps that they had created themselves. If such a system were to be considered for a tournament in BBCBA at this time maybe the organizer should designate a set of maps that are useable in each round and nominate a player in each match up (the first name drawn?) as the 'challenger'.
I appreciate that this is a rather radical change to what has already discussed, but I would be interested to hear what others think of this system even if disregarded for this first tournament. I was wondering whther there would be players interested in taking part in a 'ladder' style league such as the ones available here; http://www.myleague.com/
-
paulolszanski2
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:50 pm
thats the way we used to do it when i played in the vasl league.i think for the first one though i like the idea of picking the scenario and having the players play the same sceanrio twice from the different sides.
im thinking road to caine for the first scenario.it favors the british but each player will have a chance to play both sides
im thinking road to caine for the first scenario.it favors the british but each player will have a chance to play both sides
-
paulolszanski2
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:50 pm
-
paulolszanski2
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:50 pm
And we would need 16 people (and then 32 for 5 rounds, if more ppl sign up...) to make it a proper knock out tournament, or you have some other rule in mind?
That way we would have 4 rounds, and we could make it one map for each round :
1- Road to Caen (shortest and quickest to play the 1st and most crowded round)
2- D-Day + 3
3- Desert Fox
4 - race for the town
dude i like it.we have 11 so far.if we con pip into playing and me that would be thirteen.everybody try to find 3 other players
That way we would have 4 rounds, and we could make it one map for each round :
1- Road to Caen (shortest and quickest to play the 1st and most crowded round)
2- D-Day + 3
3- Desert Fox
4 - race for the town
dude i like it.we have 11 so far.if we con pip into playing and me that would be thirteen.everybody try to find 3 other players
-
paulolszanski2
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:50 pm
-
OneSpartan
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:53 pm
I agree with paulolszanski2 that better keep it simple, at least for this first edition. We can always introduce changes in next editions if everyone agrees.paulolszanski2 wrote:logans i agree with what you say but for the first tournament it would be much simpler if we went the way we are talking about doing it now.what if the third tye breaker was the amount of tanks you killed? and i mean tanks not selfpropelled or open top or halftracks just tanks.
So i think tie breakers should go :
1. Number of Total Flags taken in both scenarios
3. Total number of kills minus Total number of losses (ALL type of units, otherwise unbalanced by sides)
-
SailingGuy
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:56 pm
-
SailingGuy
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:56 pm
Since most of the scenarios (at least the ones I've played) seem to favor one side or another, you could run the tournament like a duplicate bridge tournament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicate_bridge
Essentially divide the group randomly into two flights. One flight (8 players in a tournament of 16) takes the Axis and one flight (8 players) takes the Allies. Everyone plays the same scenario. To advance to the second round you have to do better than most of your fellow flight members. In a flight of 8 you would have to finish in the top 4 to advance.
So in addition to competing against your scenario opponent, you are also competing against the people in the same flight. You could theoretically lose the scenario but still advance, as you didn't lose "as bad" as others in your flight. This would solve the problem of unbalanced scenarios.
For the final two players left: Play two games, switching sides after the first.
Change the scenario each round. Some sort of tie break would need to be instituted. If you are in the middle of a game that you think you might lose, in order to beat your fellow flight members, your strategy might shift to "preservation of force". Which happens much more frequently in real war than it does in wargames.
Added note: During the middle of a scenario, since you don't know how well or how poorly your fellow flight members are doing (results for each round should not be posted until all games in that round are completed), you would have to make a decision regarding how aggressive to be. Do I go for broke and try to win decisively? Or do I play conservatively and just try to end up in the top 4 of my flight?
Essentially divide the group randomly into two flights. One flight (8 players in a tournament of 16) takes the Axis and one flight (8 players) takes the Allies. Everyone plays the same scenario. To advance to the second round you have to do better than most of your fellow flight members. In a flight of 8 you would have to finish in the top 4 to advance.
So in addition to competing against your scenario opponent, you are also competing against the people in the same flight. You could theoretically lose the scenario but still advance, as you didn't lose "as bad" as others in your flight. This would solve the problem of unbalanced scenarios.
For the final two players left: Play two games, switching sides after the first.
Change the scenario each round. Some sort of tie break would need to be instituted. If you are in the middle of a game that you think you might lose, in order to beat your fellow flight members, your strategy might shift to "preservation of force". Which happens much more frequently in real war than it does in wargames.
Added note: During the middle of a scenario, since you don't know how well or how poorly your fellow flight members are doing (results for each round should not be posted until all games in that round are completed), you would have to make a decision regarding how aggressive to be. Do I go for broke and try to win decisively? Or do I play conservatively and just try to end up in the top 4 of my flight?
-
PirateJock_Wargamer
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:21 pm
- Location: North West, UK
- Contact:
I'm happy to go with whatever rules Paul decides on - just want to play and no big hangups on intricate complexities as makes my brain hurt and somebody always feels that's not the right way to do it.
Comments though are:
Comments though are:
- As my old P.E. teacher used to say KISS - to this day I believe/hope he was talking about keeping it simple
- Duplicate bridge idea sounds a good approach - no need for playing 2 games each round which as time goes on will invariably lead to people dropping out. Also negates any feeling that scenario is biased to one side or other
- No preference for scoring system; just needs to be clear at the start so can decide how to play. I know it won't be perfect as it's basically a suck-it-and-see (another of my old P.E. teacher's sayings ) but any issues identified means the 2nd tournament will be better
- Need to be clear on how results are reported (format, content and recipients)
- What happens if opponents contest a result
I'm happy with any format really but i must say that SailingGuys' suggestion sounds very intriguing.
It would speed things up and add some decision to make during the game as he describes it. Sounds fun to me.
I don't think it has been mentioned but there must be a rule that forbid surrender. Perhaps because it's obvious it hasn't been mentioned
but I do it anyway.
Scenarios: I'm not to keen on Road to Caen. Have only played it once but as the Germans you can't do anything but just sit and watch how some of your units are attacked and destroyed the first turn.
The gun is even in a truck iirc and you never get a chance to place it. Feels stupid.
If the Germans started it would be better.
I would suggest "A Winter Encounter" by insidius instead. A better scenario in my opinion. Not too big and winable from both sides, that I know for sure
It would speed things up and add some decision to make during the game as he describes it. Sounds fun to me.
I don't think it has been mentioned but there must be a rule that forbid surrender. Perhaps because it's obvious it hasn't been mentioned
but I do it anyway.Scenarios: I'm not to keen on Road to Caen. Have only played it once but as the Germans you can't do anything but just sit and watch how some of your units are attacked and destroyed the first turn.
The gun is even in a truck iirc and you never get a chance to place it. Feels stupid.
If the Germans started it would be better.
I would suggest "A Winter Encounter" by insidius instead. A better scenario in my opinion. Not too big and winable from both sides, that I know for sure
-
pipfromslitherine
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9864
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:35 pm
Just to note that at some point in the future (short to medium term) there will be integrated tournament play in BA - just responding to the ideas on using online management systems.
Having said that, the systems you guys come up with for scoring and ties etc might be really good starting points for the tournament logic which will be unique to BA.
Sorry - no chance of me playing - I'd have to give up eating and/or sleeping.
Cheers
Pip
Having said that, the systems you guys come up with for scoring and ties etc might be really good starting points for the tournament logic which will be unique to BA.
Sorry - no chance of me playing - I'd have to give up eating and/or sleeping
.Cheers
Pip
-
paulolszanski2
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:50 pm
-
paulolszanski2
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:50 pm
-
OneSpartan
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:53 pm