Self-balancing tournament scenarios

[wrongway149]

I'd suggest splitting the players into attackers and defenders. The top half of each group advance. If you attacked in the first round you must defend in the second round.

Quick! Someone come up with two or three of these before the end of the month! We have a tourney May 25-27.

Hmm I like that idea. Do you want similar scenarios for the different rounds?

Such as 'an EXIT VP scenario' to attack and then a different one (but still focused on Exit VP) to defend?

[Fort]

For tournaments which do not allow open play (i.e. the scenario list is limited), one could develop "self-balancing" scenarios. A self-balancing scenario would be one which has an incremental victory goal for one side rather than a victory condition. The goal would be something like, cause enemy CVP or capture stone building locations. The victory goals probably would have to have some kind of tie-breaker or series of tie-breakers to prevent large groups of players from having the same score in a round.

Everyone would play the same scenario in a round, with the winners of the round being the half of the players who achieved the highest victory goal score, and the half of the opponents whose opposite numbers achieved the lowest victory goal score. That way there's no question of whether the scenario is balanced or not, because the final score is compared against the results of other games, not against an arbitrary, fixed-in-stone, victory condition.

Of course the mechanism doesn't work for the final round ;-)

JR

Unless the tournament were somehow seeded by skill this could turn out to be an unfair process.

Example: Two players at the top of the game play each other in the first round, they should win in any game over any other player at the event...in this format they prevent each other from achieving an 'edge of the bell curve' result....now both of the higher level of skill players have K.O'ed each other in the first round.

[Fort]

I guess most German players deliberately malfunctioned the MA on one of their AFVs on the first Turn and let the Recalled vehicle drive offboard to end it all, quickly.

Looks to me simply like REALLY poorly written VCs, open to immense sleeze.

Good luck making that work in a tournament....

After 'are eliminated/immobilized' add '/Recalled'

Add:

"SSR X. No German AFV may end it's MPh in Motion."

Scenario fixed....

(Let 'em make Motion attempts..that'll add to the excitement, imho.)

[jrv]

Unless the tournament were somehow seeded by skill this could turn out to be an unfair process.

Example: Two players at the top of the game play each other in the first round, they should win in any game over any other player at the event...in this format they prevent each other from achieving an 'edge of the bell curve' result....now both of the higher level of skill players have K.O'ed each other in the first round.

I noticed this well after I started thread, and I wondered if anyone else would. That is something of a flaw. If the best half of the players are on one side and the worst half on the other, then the best of the best and the best of the worst move on (ignoring the factor of luck, where a worse player beats a better player). But the same flaw exists in any fixed tree tournaments (where the players are paired by a fixed tree), such as minis at ASLOK. Unless the players are carefully seeded, all the good players may end up on the same subtree, while all the bad players are on the other. And while that's not exactly fair, it actually isn't that terrible either, unless there are prizes for place and show. If there is only a prize for win (e.g. a mini-tournament at ASLOK), the best player should win it all regardless.

JR

[jrv]

After 'are eliminated/immobilized' add '/Recalled'

Add:

"SSR X. No German AFV may end it's MPh in Motion."

Scenario fixed....

(Let 'em make Motion attempts..that'll add to the excitement, imho.)

I get the feeling that Burzevo needs more than that, but it's a good start.

JR

[SamB]

Hmm I like that idea. Do you want similar scenarios for the different rounds?

Such as 'an EXIT VP scenario' to attack and then a different one (but still focused on Exit VP) to defend?

Pete,

That would be fabulous... We're also thinking about "themes" - so if all the scenarios were late war, or early war, or East Front, etc, etc,... that would be even better.

Think you can get me three by May 25 or so?