 |
|
tournament proposal - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Steel Panthers Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Thread: tournament proposal (/showthread.php?tid=68048) |
RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-18-2015 There does not seem to be much interest shown in the position of CG so let us consider that not only will the CG control the the Battle and also the other subordinate commanders but he will also play one of the maps. The CGs will begin by recruiting their subordinate commanders, creating a team of their choosing. I also envisioned that after each segment the commanders can be moved to a different map therefore a player may not be facing the same opponent/terrain as he did in the previous segment. The CG can move his commanders as the situation warrants. RE: tournament proposal - Weasel - 05-19-2015 Interesting idea, it is too bad the number of guys playing SP at this point is so low, five years ago you would have had 20 guys already. I may play, not sure. RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-19-2015 Even if it was 3 or even 2 players per side the system would work. There would have to be an overall commander though, even if it was still a democratic process which decided the maneuver scheme. I've thought often about Walrus's proposal on invisible objectives but have yet to discover a solution to the scoring problem. To use the invisible objectives system SP score would probably need to be abandoned in this case. I am in the process of writing the Tournament ROEs. Although I have been considering and experimenting with this system for 6 or 7 years now I have as yet not written it down. The ROE will be ready for examination/comment soon. RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-19-2015 One way that SP Score could be incorporated into the hidden objective format would be to award 7 Flags if you accomplish your mission; 7 flags if you outscore your opponent; 7 flags if you can deny your opponent from accomplishing his mission. RE: tournament proposal - Weasel - 05-19-2015 Walrus and I play with no flags, we just agree at end game what the outcome is based on what we both thought was the deciding feature of the map. I would recommend using the afv movement restrictions, it really does make tanks behave like tanks instead of all terrain vehicles going anywhere they want. RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-19-2015 (05-19-2015, 11:29 AM)Weasel Wrote: Walrus and I play with no flags, we just agree at end game what the outcome is based on what we both thought was the deciding feature of the map. I would recommend using the afv movement restrictions, it really does make tanks behave like tanks instead of all terrain vehicles going anywhere they want. And what, pray tell, are the AFV movement restrictions? Never heard of that one. When you say that you and Walrus will play do you mean as a team against another team as yet undecided? If you want to try the game system one against the other I could create a map and divide it into 3 sections. RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-19-2015 I just created a Master Map and split it into 3 sections. I made some minor modifications on one I found in the map folder so it would be quick and easy. Map is attached RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-19-2015 Oh! I see now. I thought you and Walrus were volunteering to do a test run on this game system. My bad. RE: tournament proposal - oldrocky - 05-19-2015 I found the AFV movement rule in your sticky post at the top of the Forum and I consider it unnecessary with the terrain modifications implemented in the last couple SP upgrades. A density "40" forest hex is very hard to traverse with a vehicle reflecting the nature of the terrain compared to a lesser density hex such as a "0" density open terrain hex. I believe SP Camo did a good job in that respect. Also, I wish to keep the ROE as simple and easy to understand as possible without too many complications and extra rules that must be remembered. There will be a Z Fire rule closely modeled on your known preference: 3 hex's for Infantry and 10 Hex's for all other weapons. The Arty rules will also resemble your FO rules in that Arty of the same Battery/Section must be deployed within 1 hex of each other and target the same hex and if one gun of a Battery shifts fire then all the Guns in the Battery/Section must shift fire to the same target hex. However a dedicated FO for every Battery will not be required. Also: If artillery Z fires into a hex then it can also register immediate fire mission into the same hex and this is practical as well as historical because the weapon system has line of sight. However the short range factor will prohibit all but mortars from taking advantage of that rule. I'm still considering alternate scoring options including the no V hex proposal. Please keep offering idea's and preferences and we'll try to work something out that will make this enjoyable as well as playable for everyone. RE: tournament proposal - Ratel - 05-20-2015 Count me in please. |
){kind=link}