**New Tournament Ideas**

[Mr Grumpy]

though from my observations it seems more research into the scenario selection process is needed re play balance.

This issue has not been a problem when Gary used the H2H scenarios for tourneys, problem is that we cannot produce new scenarios fast enough to keep pace with the tourneys. :(

[Dog Soldier]

though from my observations it seems more research into the scenario selection process is needed re play balance.

also I think the scenario's need to be a little bigger so that skill will overcome a lucky streak.

I do not think it a question of researching scenario balance as much as it is problematic to match up opponents. ELO and number of games played is a as good a measure we have here. Yet neither can fully take into account the recent learning or increases in skill a player achieves. This is because there is such a huge pool of players in the club (good thing). Thus a player could be better or less than he seems on paper due to the level of opponents skill and familiarity with any particular title. On the whole it is a crap shoot for the torunament organizer to create exciting match ups. It does happen the tournament directors get it right more often than not, or there would not be such good turnouts, IMHO

My expereince with smaller scenarios is just the oppoisite.
It takes a sound strategy from the start. There is not time to change direction.
Excellent tactical skills are required. One poor move can throw a VP level. There is not time to recover from a mistake.

Dog Soldier

[Dog Soldier]

though from my observations it seems more research into the scenario selection process is needed re play balance.

This issue has not been a problem when Gary used the H2H scenarios for tourneys, problem is that we cannot produce new scenarios feast enough to keep pace with the tourneys. :(

HTH sceanrios are an improvement, but stock can be used in the mirror game format with total VP accumulations or points for levels of victory. Mirror matches allow one to play both sides.

Dog Soldier

[Zemke]

Does the scenario really have to be "balanced"? Most battles are not balanced, a scenario designer has to place and value objectives to create "balance", and that is hard to do without a LOT of testing.

Play balance could be taken completely out of the picture, if another "method" were used to determine winners. What if in the tournament you played only one side. There would be two winners, one for the Axis and one for the Allied. The determination of the winner would be the points different from each battle. For example if player X had a win 5500 point but a minor victory, while player Y had a 6100 point win, also a minor victory, player Y would be the winner, for his side, all else equal. In other words the points themselves allow a way to determine winners if you played the same side and same scenario each time.

This allows the use of any scenario for the tournament, because play balance no longer matters, what matters is how well you do relative to the players playing the same nationality as yourself.

Just an idea, thinking out of the box and all that jazz.

[Mr Grumpy]

Does the scenario really have to be "balanced"? Most battles are not balanced, so what a scenario designer has to do are place and value objectives to create "balance", and that is hard to do without a LOT of testing.

This is what we do at the H2H, "balance" is the ability of either player to achieve a victory despite the historical situation that may favour one side and you are correct, this is achieved using VP hex's and victory levels and a whole lot of testing. ;)

[Krak]

I guess if the tourny's are just a bit of fun and a beer and pretzels type thing then play balance and match ups determined by ELO status is probably not an issue.

If you want a more 'serious' competitive tourny then the scenario's need to be reasonably balanced, the games larger (so that luck plays a lesser role) and the winner determined thru more established methods, ie. tennis or world cup type methods, as I mentioned earlier. This is how any serious competition is organized.

So it depends on what the club desires. Maybe different kinds of tourny could be played seperately, one for fun, one for true competitive play. With players choosing their preference.

[Dog Soldier]

If you want a more 'serious' competitive tourny then the scenario's need to be reasonably balanced, the games larger (so that luck plays a lesser role) and the winner determined thru more established methods, ie. tennis or world cup type methods, as I mentioned earlier. This is how any serious competition is organized.

Most tournaments can take up to six months or more to complete with moderate and small scenarios. Asking for longer scenarios would require year long commitments. I doubt that could happen. From my experience luck plays a small role in these games. Scenarios between 12 and 20 turns make the tense and exciting games. There is little room for error in these, so I would say they are a better test of skill and not a matter of luck.

After all a tennis game is only four points long.

Dog Soldier

[Zemke]

My primary point is the two "winner idea", one for each side of the scenario. This allows any scenario to be played regardless of balance, tested or not tested. Also, you would not have to worry about the time it takes to create balanced scenarios. It is just an idea.