PDA

View Full Version : Ideas for next tournament subject



Leftie
20 Jul 06, 02:16
Gentlemen,

We are looking to hold another tournament after the completion of the 1776 tourney. I am trying to get a feel for what game everyone would be interested in playing. Since we did Waterloo last time, we obviously wouldn't want to do it again so soon. Does anyone have a favorite game that they would like to play? I was thinking maybe Napoleons Russian Campaign or maybe Wagram but am open to any of the titles.

If you have something in mind, here would be the place to plug it.




Thanks
Ben

rahamy
20 Jul 06, 08:36
I think Eckmuhl is probably the most commonly owned Nap title at this point, so that would probably be best. NRC would have my second vote...

Pirimeister
20 Jul 06, 08:43
If in the end we go with a traditional tourney format, then I would prefer Russian Campaing, because that's the game I was interested in playing.

But since you asked for ideas I can offer one, although I'm not even remotely aware of the arrangements that have to be done in order to make it work: a 4-way (or more) tourney game.

I think it would be great fun have 2 players on each side, each controling a portion of that side's forces and working for a common goal. That might prove to be interesting since the other team member would have to exercise some restrain on what he can realisticly achieve, now that he can't shape/control the events on the rest of the battlefield. He would also have to deal with the frustration that comes from that.

In fact, using my ignorance on the extra mechanics necessary to pull this off, I'm going to go a bit further and sugest a 3-players-a-side game, where 2 control the forces in the ground like I wrote above and the third player only giving instructions. That would be fun, I think, because it would require some team work from all those involved while at the same time dealing with the absolute control we're used to have over our own side's forces and goals.

Of course this might be impossible to implement, so feel free to show me the light by topedoing my reasoning:D

But it does sound great on paper, doesn't it?


Cheers!
Paulo

wlh
20 Jul 06, 09:07
I have never done PBEM, but, I do have Eckmuhl, NRC, Wagram, and Waterloo.

Bill

Von bert
20 Jul 06, 09:55
Hi evrybody, im new here, ( but old to wargames )

i never playead PBEM game, but i think i would love it.
I got "Napoleon RC". So for me the choice is easy and clear.. :D

"Pirimeister": i dunno how can be done, but i think it sounds nice what u suggest..."to play a battle with many players on each side."

Btw
To evrybody: i really think that 3d units graphics on the map sucks..:nuts:
both at low and hig zoom.
Im experimenting to re-draw how units appears on battlefield..
it can be done. Sure it need lots of effort :upset:
Im currently trying to use units from CIV3.
Do you think some peole would be interested ?
Did somebody try thisn before ?
My target is to make units more nice, clear, and ergonomics.
But maybe this is another thread.. ;)

KG_RangerBooBoo
20 Jul 06, 10:54
Welcome wlh and Von Bert. I never use the 3d except to check which hexsides roads really cross or if I need a really close look at the terrain so I can't really speak to your 3d project. I'd recommend PBEM to both of you. It doesn't take long to get where you can beat up on the AI and playing another human will open up whole new dimensions to the games. If either of you want to play a scenario PBEM to get your feet wet just PM me. The 2 player teams could work for a tourney and the single phase play is perfect for it. I'm afraid trying to do a three player would get a bit cumbersome and might take to long to finish.

Mini-Me
20 Jul 06, 12:40
Napoleon's Russian Campaign

rahamy
20 Jul 06, 12:55
Glad to see new posters in the section...welcome guys! And yes, please start a new thread if you want to talk about the 3D graphics) :cool:

NRC works for me if it means more people can participate.

Paulo...while MP games can be fun, they are very cumbersom...even with only 2 people per side, and move very slowly. There would have to be a very high degree of commitment from all the players to make it happen. The biggest problem is not everyone plays at the same speed, and teams would most likely become frustrated with this. Then sometimes files get lost between people...very easy for things to become derailed.

Speaking from years of Multi-player gaming experience I would suggest that everyone interested in this concept first play (and complete) a MP game outside of the tournement format before we tackle it. It really is a totaly new experience. :shock:

AlAmos
20 Jul 06, 14:37
If a MP format was adopted, I would recommend all four players commit 1hour per week, at a specific time and hook up on line the turns can be timed to move the game along. Think of it like joining a bowling league. For x number of Monday nights (or whenever) you have an hour or two dedicated to the game.

If a homemade scenario were designed for 18 to 24 turns and turns were set for 5 minutes then an MP game could be played to completion within 3 1-hour sessions without much difficulty. (I think ... hehehe...)

Let's see, 5 minute turns for each side equals 10 per turn. 24 turns would take 240 minutes which is 4 hours. That would be 4 sessions each requiring about 1 and 1/2 hours of time to allow for connecting, chatting, etc.

A 24 turn battle would represent six hours which would be a good length battle for two corps each. For the Russians that would end up being about 4 infantry divisions and 2 cavalry divisions ... which would be some 24 bns per players and about 6 regiments of cavalry and 7 batteries or so. This force would be small enough for one player to handle in 5 minutes. For the French it would be easy to assemble one or two corps of French and their allies to have about the same number of tactical units per player.

Just a thought.

al

rahamy
20 Jul 06, 16:53
Nice idea, but I could never commit to a regular time like that, for a long block of time. My life is too unperdictable...that's why I like PBEM!! :D

With that said though, don't let me hold you guys back if you want to try it...wouldn't hurt me to sit out the next tourney anyway!! :nuts:

Mini-Me
20 Jul 06, 16:54
My 0.02 = regular PBEM for the next tournament.

Pirimeister
21 Jul 06, 08:15
Like I said, I' not really fully aware of the dificulties that come from a 4-player game. But I once took a peek at one such thread over at the ACW forum and that got me really curious.

Since this kind of game has those time pitfalls, maybe we can set something up on the side, if there's enough interest. I sure would like to give it a go.

If we take the "road more traveled" for our next tourney, then I would like it if our destination was Russia.

Cheers!
Paulo

arckon
21 Jul 06, 08:33
Like I said, I' not really fully aware of the dificulties that come from a 4-player game. But I once took a peek at one such thread over at the ACW forum and that got me really curious.

Cheers!
Paulo

Pirimeister they are fun to play.
Last multi over at ACW began last couple of days of October last year and is now on turn 27. Mind you it is an 8 player game though, 4 each side. So not real sure how successful it would be in a tourney in terms of time wise.

FastPhil
21 Jul 06, 13:30
NRC works for me(of course the rest would work also as God help me I have them all). My name is Phil and I'm a game-o-holic.:cry:

Leftie
23 Jul 06, 03:21
NRC works for me(of course the rest would work also as God help me I have them all). My name is Phil and I'm a game-o-holic.:cry:


Hi Phil!

The first step to conquering your addiction, is admitting you have one. Now that you have admitted you have a problem, the healing can begin.....



Ohh sorry, I got a little carried away there. Trust me when I tell you that you are not the only one here who is addicted :laugh:.


Ben

Mike Cox
24 Jul 06, 20:12
The MP is interesting. The battle of Linz from Wagram would be a good candidate. 20 turns. I believe there were 2 corps to a side. (Meaning each player would get a corps.)

In round one you play French (or Austrian) with player A against B & C. In round two you you play Austrian (or French) with any player but A, preferably D.

The tourney score would be the total of round one and round two. Points would be the difference from the base.

For example: The scenario has French First and initial points are 150 (They probably have a few objectives). In Round one you are French and get a major victory with 500 points. You score a +350. In Austrian round two you score a minor victory with 100 point. You score +50. Your total score is 400. If you are not partnered with teh same person, the likely hood of a tie is small.

They key to a MP tourney would be small size and turn length. A 20 turn game is going to take the time of a 40 turn scenario.

Mike Cox
24 Jul 06, 20:22
Another interesting wrinkle would need all players to have basic familiarity with the scenario editor and a devoted SZO tourney manager.

Starting with a file named SZO.oob containing a corps or two and a SZO.map that was fairly simple and even (some hills, some forest on each side, comparable road networks), French players would be told to deploy their corps in XXX area. If they want to have reinforcements entering on ZZ road, they can enter on turn YY. He saves the SZO_Cox_French.scn file and sends it to the tourney org. His opponent does the same thing for the AUtrians in area QQQQQ, saving the the file as SZO_Bobke_Austrian.scn. The tourney org then combines the two, adds the objective (some sort of crossroads or high ground?) and sets the turn length and off they go...

Sgt_Rock
28 Jul 06, 04:54
NRC is good - are these mirror games or round robin?

Russians with fanatical morale can sometimes make balancing scenarios difficult.