Discuss the Path to 1942 Tournament here

[Fudwuppel]

The first round was very sad. I spent a lot of time planning the game, but my opponent did nothing.

Now the map has been replaced with a new one and my awesome plan is useless.

It's a painful and demotivating experience. Even bonus points cannot compensate for this experience.

Perhaps it makes sense to add a zero round to the tournaments to qualify the participants. A round in which you just need to play the party to the end.

"Dimonikus post:" "Great-Start!!!"… into putting some promising ideas so as to 'invigorate/revitalize'... this 'disorientated-disorganized'... tournament marathon.

More ideas such as yours are required to bring the 'Multiplayer' sessions into a really meaningful experience. More of your 'Multiplayer' enthusiast comrades... need also to contribute their input... to make this a reality!.

Absolutely. A one or two day, ten turn round whose points don't apply to the actual tournament. to weed out the stallers and quitters. This idea is brilliant in its simplicity. Kudos, Dimonikus!

[urbanov4]

So I have just noticed that a bunch of people received 2000 points while others remain at 0 or near 0. Was that for getting the opponent to surrender etc? Just wanted to know what was the criteria for assigning a bunch of people with 0 points, as much points as lets say top 10 or 15 players have earned while others, who probably only played a few rounds (could have been their fault, could have been an absent opponent) remained way below that point?

Sorry if this is a stupid question but there is no sticky with rules in it and that move seemed radical enough to warrant a question

Yeah, I wondered about that, too. I just assumed that the players that received the 2000 points were being compensated for having opponents who quit playing and the players with 0 points were the quitters or stalled playing.
I dunno, 2000 points is a huge compensation; many players finished with 3/4 that total. And, like you, I fought hard (as did my opponent) and received scores not much higher than that.
The tournament rules state that players with a bye in the round will receive the maximum score, which seems to be 2000 points. The rules also state that players affected by an opponent who stalls so the game doesn't finish will get their scores adjusted. But 2000 points is a LOT of adjustment.

That 2000 points meansthat, you can get the rough 60% of the maximum points that can be achieved. It means, if you are the strongest player, and some weaker player could play and got the max points (or almost the max.), you can't win only for that reason, your opponent quitted the game. This counting method is totally incorrect. The correct method would be that: game counts points to decide the winner only between the opponents. Then all winner could get 1 points, loser 0, if its draw, 1/2. The current point method gives less points to the strong player, who has beaten another strong player, than the one, who beaten a weak player, so it is useless to compare all players. Also would be more simple to count. This way should be organize more rounds, which also would be much better, cos u could play more games.Would be no problem if maps repeating, I'd like to play one map more times. Also should count which player used more time. And if game goes out of time, the one lose, who moved slower.
Also an idea: quitter players should have been banned from tournaments for a tiime (I think it could have been 3 months, if repeat it, more and more). It wasnt used for players, who cannot play the game for some reason and surrender.
Also should be organize more interesting tournaments with some price, maybe with a not too big entrance fee. It could be nice to filter non -interested players, also giving a goal to the players, and supporting the organizers.

[Fudwuppel]

So I have just noticed that a bunch of people received 2000 points while others remain at 0 or near 0. Was that for getting the opponent to surrender etc? Just wanted to know what was the criteria for assigning a bunch of people with 0 points, as much points as lets say top 10 or 15 players have earned while others, who probably only played a few rounds (could have been their fault, could have been an absent opponent) remained way below that point?

Sorry if this is a stupid question but there is no sticky with rules in it and that move seemed radical enough to warrant a question

Yeah, I wondered about that, too. I just assumed that the players that received the 2000 points were being compensated for having opponents who quit playing and the players with 0 points were the quitters or stalled playing.
I dunno, 2000 points is a huge compensation; many players finished with 3/4 that total. And, like you, I fought hard (as did my opponent) and received scores not much higher than that.
The tournament rules state that players with a bye in the round will receive the maximum score, which seems to be 2000 points. The rules also state that players affected by an opponent who stalls so the game doesn't finish will get their scores adjusted. But 2000 points is a LOT of adjustment.

That 2000 points meansthat, you can get the rough 60% of the maximum points that can be achieved. It means, if you are the strongest player, and some weaker player could play and got the max points (or almost the max.), you can't win only for that reason, your opponent quitted the game. This counting method is totally incorrect. The correct method would be that: game counts points to decide the winner only between the opponents. Then all winner could get 1 points, loser 0, if its draw, 1/2. The current point method gives less points to the strong player, who has beaten another strong player, than the one, who beaten a weak player, so it is useless to compare all players. Also would be more simple to count. This way should be organize more rounds, which also would be much better, cos u could play more games.Would be no problem if maps repeating, I'd like to play one map more times. Also should count which player used more time. And if game goes out of time, the one lose, who moved slower.
Also an idea: quitter players should have been banned from tournaments for a tiime (I think it could have been 3 months, if repeat it, more and more). It wasnt used for players, who cannot play the game for some reason and surrender.
Also should be organize more interesting tournaments with some price, maybe with a not too big entrance fee. It could be nice to filter non -interested players, also giving a goal to the players, and supporting the organizers.

I think the reason wins and losses aren't scored like chess matches (1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss) is that there would be a pack of players at the end of the tournament tied for first place. It would be difficult to determine an overall winner.
An entry fee would likely be a non-stsrter because too many players won't pay it. It would weed out the wrong players.
I don't know how to award points to the victims of stallers and quitters. Perhaps give them an average point value of the scores achieved by game winners who also finished their games. In any case, any solution used by Admin would be criticized.
I do like the idea of using the ban hammer on the stallers and quitters. After all, they have proven they don't want to play. Admin would be doing them a favor by helping them not play for a few months, right?

[urbanov4]

Yeah, I wondered about that, too. I just assumed that the players that received the 2000 points were being compensated for having opponents who quit playing and the players with 0 points were the quitters or stalled playing.
I dunno, 2000 points is a huge compensation; many players finished with 3/4 that total. And, like you, I fought hard (as did my opponent) and received scores not much higher than that.
The tournament rules state that players with a bye in the round will receive the maximum score, which seems to be 2000 points. The rules also state that players affected by an opponent who stalls so the game doesn't finish will get their scores adjusted. But 2000 points is a LOT of adjustment.

That 2000 points meansthat, you can get the rough 60% of the maximum points that can be achieved. It means, if you are the strongest player, and some weaker player could play and got the max points (or almost the max.), you can't win only for that reason, your opponent quitted the game. This counting method is totally incorrect. The correct method would be that: game counts points to decide the winner only between the opponents. Then all winner could get 1 points, loser 0, if its draw, 1/2. The current point method gives less points to the strong player, who has beaten another strong player, than the one, who beaten a weak player, so it is useless to compare all players. Also would be more simple to count. This way should be organize more rounds, which also would be much better, cos u could play more games.Would be no problem if maps repeating, I'd like to play one map more times. Also should count which player used more time. And if game goes out of time, the one lose, who moved slower.
Also an idea: quitter players should have been banned from tournaments for a tiime (I think it could have been 3 months, if repeat it, more and more). It wasnt used for players, who cannot play the game for some reason and surrender.
Also should be organize more interesting tournaments with some price, maybe with a not too big entrance fee. It could be nice to filter non -interested players, also giving a goal to the players, and supporting the organizers.

I think the reason wins and losses aren't scored like chess matches (1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss) is that there would be a pack of players at the end of the tournament tied for first place. It would be difficult to determine an overall winner.
An entry fee would likely be a non-stsrter because too many players won't pay it. It would weed out the wrong players.
I don't know how to award points to the victims of stallers and quitters. Perhaps give them an average point value of the scores achieved by game winners who also finished their games. In any case, any solution used by Admin would be criticized.
I do like the idea of using the ban hammer on the stallers and quitters. After all, they have proven they don't want to play. Admin would be doing them a favor by helping them not play for a few months, right?

I think, the swiss system tournament organizing wont be difficult at all. Just it would need some more turn. I dont know the exact method, but I counted 7 turn with 100 players (if always half the number of players). Should be a more strict time limit, fe. 3-4 days. If some wanna play he can play not only 1-2 move/day. As for me, I have some time every day after waking up so I can play 1 turn before going to work. And in the afternoon I can spare some 3-4 hours if I know there's a tournament. Or one could quit the tournament on an official way if he knows, he wont be able to keep the pace.
Entry fee and some trophy should be used if there are enough interested players. If there would be 30 players, a good "Elite" tournament should have been organized. Would have been much bigger fun than a tournament with no stake and incorrect point calculation.
If you wanna compare the points that you got against a weak player, who sacrify all his units, with some who can win on a strong opponnent within an inch: it is impossible. Always the one will win who had an easy opponent. So the only correct way to count if you lost or win.
Abot the trophies: they could be free dlc, or the winner's name used in the game officially (as it was in Panzer corps 1 tournaments, which was much better organanized, than this by a player, named Goose).

[Fudwuppel]

That 2000 points meansthat, you can get the rough 60% of the maximum points that can be achieved. It means, if you are the strongest player, and some weaker player could play and got the max points (or almost the max.), you can't win only for that reason, your opponent quitted the game. This counting method is totally incorrect. The correct method would be that: game counts points to decide the winner only between the opponents. Then all winner could get 1 points, loser 0, if its draw, 1/2. The current point method gives less points to the strong player, who has beaten another strong player, than the one, who beaten a weak player, so it is useless to compare all players. Also would be more simple to count. This way should be organize more rounds, which also would be much better, cos u could play more games.Would be no problem if maps repeating, I'd like to play one map more times. Also should count which player used more time. And if game goes out of time, the one lose, who moved slower.
Also an idea: quitter players should have been banned from tournaments for a tiime (I think it could have been 3 months, if repeat it, more and more). It wasnt used for players, who cannot play the game for some reason and surrender.
Also should be organize more interesting tournaments with some price, maybe with a not too big entrance fee. It could be nice to filter non -interested players, also giving a goal to the players, and supporting the organizers.

I think the reason wins and losses aren't scored like chess matches (1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss) is that there would be a pack of players at the end of the tournament tied for first place. It would be difficult to determine an overall winner.
An entry fee would likely be a non-stsrter because too many players won't pay it. It would weed out the wrong players.
I don't know how to award points to the victims of stallers and quitters. Perhaps give them an average point value of the scores achieved by game winners who also finished their games. In any case, any solution used by Admin would be criticized.
I do like the idea of using the ban hammer on the stallers and quitters. After all, they have proven they don't want to play. Admin would be doing them a favor by helping them not play for a few months, right?

I think, the swiss system tournament organizing wont be difficult at all. Just it would need some more turn. I dont know the exact method, but I counted 7 turn with 100 players (if always half the number of players). Should be a more strict time limit, fe. 3-4 days. If some wanna play he can play not only 1-2 move/day. As for me, I have some time every day after waking up so I can play 1 turn before going to work. And in the afternoon I can spare some 3-4 hours if I know there's a tournament. Or one could quit the tournament on an official way if he knows, he wont be able to keep the pace.
Entry fee and some trophy should be used if there are enough interested players. If there would be 30 players, a good "Elite" tournament should have been organized. Would have been much bigger fun than a tournament with no stake and incorrect point calculation.
If you wanna compare the points that you got against a weak player, who sacrify all his units, with some who can win on a strong opponnent within an inch: it is impossible. Always the one will win who had an easy opponent. So the only correct way to count if you lost or win.
Abot the trophies: they could be free dlc, or the winner's name used in the game officially (as it was in Panzer corps 1 tournaments, which was much better organanized, than this by a player, named Goose).

You do have some pretty good ideas. Building on what you've been saying, how about this?
A tournament could be scored as you suggest. One point for a win, zero for a loss and one half for a tie. Then, when there are multiple players tied, sort that group according to margin of victory. That seems fair to me.
A separate tournament with a limited enrollment could be organized. An entry fee would be charged with prizes awarded at the end. I love that idea.
Also. why not organize an 'by invitation' tournament? Proven players could be invited to participate and be charged an entry fee. For this tournament, the prizes awarded would be more substantial. Invitations to upcoming betas, the top three players in the tournament being automatically invited to the next one. Free DLCs would be nice, as you suggest. Also, I would like to see a Major Fudwuppel leading a unit in an upcoming game.

[tkrysiak]

The first round was very sad. I spent a lot of time planning the game, but my opponent did nothing.

Now the map has been replaced with a new one and my awesome plan is useless.

It's a painful and demotivating experience. Even bonus points cannot compensate for this experience.

Perhaps it makes sense to add a zero round to the tournaments to qualify the participants. A round in which you just need to play the party to the end.

This is a BRILLIANT idea to have a sort of qualifier round! Anyone who finishes the game gets to continue. It won't stop people dropping out but at least by removing 2/3 of people who registered and decided not to play, you will have less people who are stuck unable to play because they have no opponent. Maybe someone smarter than me could refine this even further but I think having a screening round would improve overall player experience. The round could be worth little in way of overall points but would be a requirement to proceed further...

[mrbuzzard]

When is my turn !!!! Tournament started 3 days ago and still no email saying my turn

[tkrysiak]

I think the reason wins and losses aren't scored like chess matches (1 point for a win, 0 points for a loss) is that there would be a pack of players at the end of the tournament tied for first place. It would be difficult to determine an overall winner.
An entry fee would likely be a non-stsrter because too many players won't pay it. It would weed out the wrong players.
I don't know how to award points to the victims of stallers and quitters. Perhaps give them an average point value of the scores achieved by game winners who also finished their games. In any case, any solution used by Admin would be criticized.
I do like the idea of using the ban hammer on the stallers and quitters. After all, they have proven they don't want to play. Admin would be doing them a favor by helping them not play for a few months, right?

I think, the swiss system tournament organizing wont be difficult at all. Just it would need some more turn. I dont know the exact method, but I counted 7 turn with 100 players (if always half the number of players). Should be a more strict time limit, fe. 3-4 days. If some wanna play he can play not only 1-2 move/day. As for me, I have some time every day after waking up so I can play 1 turn before going to work. And in the afternoon I can spare some 3-4 hours if I know there's a tournament. Or one could quit the tournament on an official way if he knows, he wont be able to keep the pace.
Entry fee and some trophy should be used if there are enough interested players. If there would be 30 players, a good "Elite" tournament should have been organized. Would have been much bigger fun than a tournament with no stake and incorrect point calculation.
If you wanna compare the points that you got against a weak player, who sacrify all his units, with some who can win on a strong opponnent within an inch: it is impossible. Always the one will win who had an easy opponent. So the only correct way to count if you lost or win.
Abot the trophies: they could be free dlc, or the winner's name used in the game officially (as it was in Panzer corps 1 tournaments, which was much better organanized, than this by a player, named Goose).

You do have some pretty good ideas. Building on what you've been saying, how about this?
A tournament could be scored as you suggest. One point for a win, zero for a loss and one half for a tie. Then, when there are multiple players tied, sort that group according to margin of victory. That seems fair to me.
A separate tournament with a limited enrollment could be organized. An entry fee would be charged with prizes awarded at the end. I love that idea.
Also. why not organize an 'by invitation' tournament? Proven players could be invited to participate and be charged an entry fee. For this tournament, the prizes awarded would be more substantial. Invitations to upcoming betas, the top three players in the tournament being automatically invited to the next one. Free DLCs would be nice, as you suggest. Also, I would like to see a Major Fudwuppel leading a unit in an upcoming game.

Overall, some good ideas but I think that the franchise and Panzer General 2 (which let's be honest started the genre and PBEM tourney community) always had scoring based on objectives/kills. I think moving away from this could be quite drastic. Same goes for having a set tourney - some people may join and dedicate time while others won't. Unfortunately, Panzer Corps is a very niche game - this is no Starcraft not AOE - we do not have a sufficiently big player base to alienate part of the player base. Maybe I am wrong and people would actually prefer a few hour long rounds at set time to finish a quick scenario rather than longer PBEM scenario...

Finally, I think that having a wider prize spread could bring a lot of people in - many whom would enjoy the experience and stick around. If you have meager prizes for three top places, most new people just shrug and say "well I ain't a f**king chance anyways" and don't even bother joining. If we could get something similar to PC1 like getting a name in the game, maybe some vouchers and free DLCs of even a small value for top 10 players I am sure things would look slightly differently in terms of numbers.

[Retributarr]

'The Pain of 'De-Feet!':… another possible idea!.

An alternative painful consequence of defeat or being defeated... instead of drastic... 'Outright-Surrender' for the losing side... might be to randomly be required to lose or relinquish a couple of motorized-units [Random-Selection... by whatever means] to the winning or victorious player.

This way... the losing 'Player'... doesn't have to be removed from the 'Game'... and will still have most of his remaining force left for his 'further-future' use... and if he has enough points… for purchasing other motorized equipment or infantry... this player could still rebuild his "unit-combat-force-group" back to 'Full-strength'... and thereby still be viable enough to continue on with the 'Multi-Player-Marathon'.

Pick this suggestion apart!... change and or alter this concept to satisfy or fit your needs.

[brianjones17]

message for mischI enjoying our game but keen to get some turns going let me know when is good for you to put some time in. Best for me is after 6.00 the next couple of days cheers

[tkrysiak]

message for mischI enjoying our game but keen to get some turns going let me know when is good for you to put some time in. Best for me is after 6.00 the next couple of days cheers

Best thing to put it in the in game chat during your round...

[Fudwuppel]

You know, now I understand why Napoleon and OKW hated Russia so much.
I truly hate snow.
Twice out of seven turns, and both times when I have set up possible breakthroughs, I couldn't use my monster Luftwaffe because it was snowing.
Too bad I was counting on those planes... Argh!
Did I mention I hate snow?

[Dimonikus]

You know, now I understand why Napoleon and OKW hated Russia so much.
I truly hate snow.
Twice out of seven turns, and both times when I have set up possible breakthroughs, I couldn't use my monster Luftwaffe because it was snowing.
Too bad I was counting on those planes... Argh!
Did I mention I hate snow?

The weather is a problem for both sides

For your information, both Napoleon and OKW made their fatal mistakes before the snow and cold became a problem.

[ElLobo]

You know, now I understand why Napoleon and OKW hated Russia so much.
I truly hate snow.
Twice out of seven turns, and both times when I have set up possible breakthroughs, I couldn't use my monster Luftwaffe because it was snowing.
Too bad I was counting on those planes... Argh!
Did I mention I hate snow?

similar things happend to me one time, and i recognized , all forces in the air means less enemy on the ground,....
of course a strong airforce can be a problem,....but when you put all strength to the air force its dangerous when you loose your airfields!!!
With that i a had a nice game against a strong airforce on steamroller,.....but was sad for him i guess.....he lost all airfields

[Fudwuppel]

You know, now I understand why Napoleon and OKW hated Russia so much.
I truly hate snow.
Twice out of seven turns, and both times when I have set up possible breakthroughs, I couldn't use my monster Luftwaffe because it was snowing.
Too bad I was counting on those planes... Argh!
Did I mention I hate snow?

The weather is a problem for both sides

For your information, both Napoleon and OKW made their fatal mistakes before the snow and cold became a problem.

I understand both your points.
And I made my blunders before the snow reared its ugly head as well.
Ah, well. Lessons learnt. I hope to do better next round.

[Fudwuppel]

You know, now I understand why Napoleon and OKW hated Russia so much.
I truly hate snow.
Twice out of seven turns, and both times when I have set up possible breakthroughs, I couldn't use my monster Luftwaffe because it was snowing.
Too bad I was counting on those planes... Argh!
Did I mention I hate snow?

similar things happend to me one time, and i recognized , all forces in the air means less enemy on the ground,....
of course a strong airforce can be a problem,....but when you put all strength to the air force its dangerous when you loose your airfields!!!
With that i a had a nice game against a strong airforce on steamroller,.....but was sad for him i guess.....he lost all airfields

That's one of the lessons I have learnt this round. Don't rely too much on only one part of combined arms.

[urbanov4]

You know, now I understand why Napoleon and OKW hated Russia so much.
I truly hate snow.
Twice out of seven turns, and both times when I have set up possible breakthroughs, I couldn't use my monster Luftwaffe because it was snowing.
Too bad I was counting on those planes... Argh!
Did I mention I hate snow?

similar things happend to me one time, and i recognized , all forces in the air means less enemy on the ground,....
of course a strong airforce can be a problem,....but when you put all strength to the air force its dangerous when you loose your airfields!!!
With that i a had a nice game against a strong airforce on steamroller,.....but was sad for him i guess.....he lost all airfields

That's one of the lessons I have learnt this round. Don't rely too much on only one part of combined arms.

In multiplayer maps, air force mainly needed to defend your units and use 1-2 tac. bomber against tanks/anti tanks. Theres's limited slots and limited prestige, so big airforce cant be used well, if you look weather, and the problems of defending airfields. Also maps usally have some open and some close terrain parts. Airplanes can be used mainly on open terrain, while they are almost useless if the enemy is on hill/city/forest. Strong anti-air units also can limit the air forceS using.
Better tactics to build as trong core force that contains units that can be defend each other and strong enogh to fight even with the strongest enemy units (heavy tanks, anti tanks, artilley, anti air), and many cheap ones to hold as large part of the map as it is possible, and avoid big losts (here, the Rusiian Wonder-Weapon is the Conscript, it is very cheap, needs only 2 slot, and not bad in defense on close terrain. Also can be used to cannon-fodder, to attack strong units with few ammo, and the remains can go deep into the enemy's homeland to distract his lines by threating him with the seizing of his towns/airfields, or killing withdrawd, unprotected units.

[Fudwuppel]

similar things happend to me one time, and i recognized , all forces in the air means less enemy on the ground,....
of course a strong airforce can be a problem,....but when you put all strength to the air force its dangerous when you loose your airfields!!!
With that i a had a nice game against a strong airforce on steamroller,.....but was sad for him i guess.....he lost all airfields

That's one of the lessons I have learnt this round. Don't rely too much on only one part of combined arms.

In multiplayer maps, air force mainly needed to defend your units and use 1-2 tac. bomber against tanks/anti tanks. Theres's limited slots and limited prestige, so big airforce cant be used well, if you look weather, and the problems of defending airfields. Also maps usally have some open and some close terrain parts. Airplanes can be used mainly on open terrain, while they are almost useless if the enemy is on hill/city/forest. Strong anti-air units also can limit the air forceS using.
Better tactics to build as trong core force that contains units that can be defend each other and strong enogh to fight even with the strongest enemy units (heavy tanks, anti tanks, artilley, anti air), and many cheap ones to hold as large part of the map as it is possible, and avoid big losts (here, the Rusiian Wonder-Weapon is the Conscript, it is very cheap, needs only 2 slot, and not bad in defense on close terrain. Also can be used to cannon-fodder, to attack strong units with few ammo, and the remains can go deep into the enemy's homeland to distract his lines by threating him with the seizing of his towns/airfields, or killing withdrawd, unprotected units.

Yeah, I realized part way into the game that I should have built armor to try and break through and infantry to exploit any openings and artillery for defensive support. If I mess up the first build/deployment I have pretty much lost the game already. For the Russians, being on defense, I did infantry and artillery, much as was historical. I'll see how that works. As I said before, I'll try to learn from my mistakes and my opponent's successes so I might do better next time.
Thanks for your advice, too.

[rickrook]

Question on Scoring: If you win a game before the turn limit, do you get points for the turns not played?

[ElLobo]

The Map Moscow is a difficult one,....

the most work is for infantry and artillery, some bombers, and the tanks only to encircle the city,...but with infantry is a hard defensiv inside the city,....one meter ahead, and two back,...
is horrible ,.....is very stiff,....like in WW I ....

i´m not sure to win annything here