Tanks
»
Tanks
»
General Discussion
»
Tournament structure?
Rank: Commander
Posts: 99
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
What kind of structure would people like to see for tournaments?
Several rounds of swiss, but would people want a cut to the top 4/8 depending on size?
How many points? If each game is so brief at 100 points (30 mins) does that mean shorter events, or should the points go up for tourneys?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 173
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 21 post(s)
|
Have yet to play so know idea about game size, but a defo no to cutting like FFG do, let everybody have equal fun and play the same number of games. Would be great if it could be organised so there are no blue on blue match-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 99
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
Balancing axis vs allies will be difficult with three allied and only one axis. Fine for a smaller, fluffier event, but no use for a larger one. Edited by user Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:55:28 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 173
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 21 post(s)
|
US v USSR I wouldn't say is blue on blue though, different armies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 99
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
Avoiding blue on blue depends entirely on whether people collect multi factions, or focus on one. It's a nice to have, but creates difficulties for making sure you have enough players to make it worth running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 173
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 29 time(s) in 21 post(s)
|
Should be no problem with 4 factions unless more than 50% take one faction. May have to play blue on blue for the final or you have rewards for the best players from each faction. Either way, blue on blue is pretty crap and easy to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 99
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
No. In a tournament it's expected and most won't give a damn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 102
Thanks: 19 times
Was thanked: 12 time(s) in 12 post(s)
|
If it's a tournament then blue on blue could happen, but if it's a narrative campaign then would hopefully be avoided. I'm planning on having a few different sides to choose from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 99
Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
I've already worked out how many tanks I need of each type to have single type forces for each :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 49
Thanks: 30 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
Small comment - StuGs should feature well into tourney-oriented, or more nuanced scenario-designing.
The Blitzkrieg attribute sounds like a lofty offensive advantage - I think it's perfect more for shoot & scoot tactics (by StuGs for example), and for retrograding tactics of trading terrain for continued combat effectiveness (all theory of course, as haven't been able to play the game yet).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 33
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
|
For me part of the appeal of this game is that you can play a game in a short period of time. It lets you have the flexibility of playing several games in a reasonable period of time. I occasionally play in tournaments and prefer swiss style events. The points would certainly effect the time a game takes to play but until the game is out for a while it is hard to know if everything else is balanced enough to promote consistent game length. I certainly have played games where they were won in the first minutes and became un-fun quickly. In any case I do agree that this game seems like it will scale well but I am not sure to what point that no longer makes sense. What I do believe is that it has the potential to be very flexible. It is likely the play testers have a better sense of this, since I have not as yet played.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 42
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 5 post(s)
|
For tournaments, I'd like to exploit the quick playstyle of this game: Imagine to fight 6 or more battles in a day, instead of usual 3 like FoW (like here in Italy).
It'd be damn good!
6 opponents, 6 different armies, 6 different tactics, 6 more soldiers in your post-game drinking team!
Apart from the last one, the other are a good way to determine the "best general"... it will be the guy able to defeat the majority of opponents!
I personally (and many players in my country, too), hate blue on blue. It's just so... so... unfunny... Tiger firing on other Tigers, T34 swarming against each other... no, no, no, not for me. Instead, you can work it out as I'll do, and make a Finnish force out of soviet tanks! Same rules and stats, but you play for the Axis. In Italy tournaments usually have a "best allied general" and a "best axis general" (I've been, once... all other axis player did worse than me XD ), 2nd and 3rd places for both, and a "best painter" (not "painted army", the prize goes to the painter, even if not present... it's up to the army's owner to deliver the trophy to the brushmaster). I love this formula.
100 pts seem a right starting point.. we'll see in future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Commander
Posts: 236
Thanks: 18 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 52 post(s)
|
Perhaps, to avoid blue on blue, have each player come with two lists: one Axis, the other Ally. In the pre-game, the matched players dice off for list choice. The winner has their choice of list, with perhaps the loser becoming the Attacker for the match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tanks
»
Tanks
»
General Discussion
»
Tournament structure?
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.