Tournament interest

[Walrus]

Hey Gila.

You are kinda missing the angle a bit.

You play against human opponents.
There are two 'teams', you'll be on one or the other.

After you play you battle, your score is rated against the rest of your 'team', who have all played the same battle from the same perspective, and you get your tourney 'points' depending on how well you ranked against your team mates.

This is a brilliant system to allow for quite lopsided battle in the tourney itself...the sort of more real battles where those Russians defending the bridge will probably lose, but how badly will they lose?

This system has been used in tourneys here before and has worked very well.

Also, he's suggesting that there will be no 'flags' at all...no need to 'set to zero' as you suggested as they are not even used. The tourney master sets the 'objectives', which only the player knows. He does not know the enemy's objective.
It adds an air of mystery to the game as you try to get your mission done at the same time trying to work out what the enemy is up to and trying to stop his mission.
Much more interesting than a flag based game.

Again, this has been done in tournies here before and works very well.

Chris has run a few tournaments here, always with great success. I think you'll find he has it all well under control mate

[Weasel]

Hey Gila.

You are kinda missing the angle a bit.

You play against human opponents.
There are two 'teams', you'll be on one or the other.

After you play you battle, your score is rated against the rest of your 'team', who have all played the same battle from the same perspective, and you get your tourney 'points' depending on how well you ranked against your team mates.

This is a brilliant system to allow for quite lopsided battle in the tourney itself...the sort of more real battles where those Russians defending the bridge will probably lose, but how badly will they lose?

This system has been used in tourneys here before and has worked very well.

Also, he's suggesting that there will be no 'flags' at all...no need to 'set to zero' as you suggested as they are not even used. The tourney master sets the 'objectives', which only the player knows. He does not know the enemy's objective.
It adds an air of mystery to the game as you try to get your mission done at the same time trying to work out what the enemy is up to and trying to stop his mission.
Much more interesting than a flag based game.

Again, this has been done in tournies here before and works very well.

Chris has run a few tournaments here, always with great success. I think you'll find he has it all well under control mate

Thanks mate.

You are bit confused too though Ringo, in this battle there will be no rankings against others, every German player could score and OW win if they achieve all three objectives, or they could all have a loss. No flags (except to keep the game from quitting), just hidden missions which I assign to each side.

Hmm, is that bridge his objective, or is he trying to wipe me out? That bridge has wide open terrain, I will get clobbered if I try to hold it, but if I hide my force in those far off trees am I handing the bridge to him?

I think this system will make the game almost realistic as far as commanding your force goes.

[Walrus]

Damn! You are right.
That's an even better idea, Brother Weasel.
Realistic is best.
Cheers

[Weasel]

For those who said they are interested, you have to sign up in the OP-B forum.

[Gibratar]

Hi
Some time ago I posted "Special Rules"
Bridge assault was discussed in those.