The Official World in Flames Tournament Thread

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

From my personal first hand experience, a grunt was an infantryman regardless of rank. We didn't mind the name at all. Sure beat being called a jarhead or a squid. :)

[Crossroads]

Great, we can then get the files from you, Rod.

We are up to fifteen now, with herr Panzerjäger joining in. I will initiate the discussions on optional rules with the ranking officers (top brass?), and possibly on selecting the first scenarios to play.

Ultimately, we will need two Top Brass to distribute the Disgruntled Grunts to scenarios...

Here's an update on how the teams are beginning to pan out:


Team Callsign DraftNo Rank
1 KKR 8 15
1 Ed 10 44
1 Larry Reese 4 57
1 Otto von Blotto 9 63
1 von Manstein 2 99
1 Sgt K. Kat 3 124
1 Ashcloud 14 166
1 pawn117 13 250
2 Bioman 12 28
2 Cole 6 53
2 Panzerjäger 15 62
2 Boisforas 7 67
2 Ernst 11 106
2 Outlaw Josey Wales 1 150
2 Arnold75 5 182

As Larry mentioned earlier he has a soft spot for Russians, and von Manstein on the other hand preferring to play axis we can still mix this a bit. This Tournament is all about fun and enjoyment, remember!

But printed it out just to show everyone how we are about to be formed into two, balanced teams.

There's still room in the tournament - Get Enlisted Now! :soap:

PS I just had to have a look at the dictionary for this grunt thing... A noun? A verb? Do you have to be gruntled before you can be disgruntled?

Enjoy: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dis1.htm :cheeky:

[Von Earlmann]

I'm still on the fence about this but will admit I do find it interesting. I have reservations about potential problems. Please understand I am not trying to dampen the concept nor ruin it; just playing devils advocate a bit. The first major problem will be with the optional rules which will probably eliminate me as a player. I will not play with EA off or armor facing on.I didn't mention VV cause that is so universally disliked anyway.

Second fear (and this comes from years as a sports official) is gamey play esp the so called 9:30 charge to get enough points for a victory.I have found that once you keep score in anything the competitive level goes up and the fun level goes down. It tends to bring out the worst in most of us.Don't get me wrong I like competition if it is fair and ethical but have found in todays world they are both the first casualties of any competition.

Third problem is I don't play pre war years scenarios nor RS as I have no interest in them and fear the RS game will amplify the gaminess with all the banzai thingys.

Anyway it is a noble endeavour and well worth the time being spent on it.

VE
Oops! Probably should have posted this on the other thread.

[Crossroads]

Thanks Earl for sharing your thoughts with us :)

Those are good points, and l agree they should be discussed. So let me try to answer them and while doing so I invite everyone else to share their concerns and experiences as well.

Tournament philosophy
- A fun tournament everyone can join in
- A system that accommodates for mixed teams of experienced and new players
- A tournament that would have the members to play types of battles they would not otherwise play
- A tournament that will not wither and die, as it is about teams with a capability to pick up where someone has left the battlefield

Enabling the philosophy
- An experienced CinC who oversees the team distribution
- Those playing a one-on-one are likely to finish first, and would start with a team game in the next round. This provides for the necessity for balancing noobs such as myself with the gurus out there.
- Hopefully we end up with CinCs volunteering into the job. This is one of the areas I am a bit worried of. If no one wants to be a CinC, maybe, well let us just wait and see how it works out...

Points system and gamey tactics
- I hope the simple point system and the number of players balances things out
- Gamey tactics are a valid concern. The thread that was around a couple of months ago had a good discussion of them, and I like to try the philosophy that for each gamey tactic there is a counter tactic that spoils it. I know many members go into detail as what is that they are willing to accept, but really would not like to have any (too much?) of that around. If some one wants to flee the battlefield in panic, so may it be. It will be a long war, and things should even out.

And finally:

Optional rules
I agree this needs to be nailed as one of the first things. I propose the following:
- If a scenario is explicitly balanced for certain options, they will be used.
- In all other scenarios the Tournament rules are used. My proposal:
-- All optional rules ON except VV, AF
-- I know especially AF is something people have different opinions of, so please speak out now.
-- I am hoping we would not play with EA off, but again, am willing (of course I am!) to accommodate for a consensus on that as well.


These are my 0,02 of course. Others, what do you think?

PS I am now confusing everyone with this other thread I came out to advertise the tournament. Sorry about that. Of course, the other thread got much more philosophical, meanwhile. I will monitor all three including the tournament thread it self, to get everyone's opinion in!

[Cole]

Optional Rules:

My vote is for both Extreme Assault and Armor Facing on.


I feel stronger about extreme assault than armor facing though. Going into pet peeve / rant territory here but to me it seems the majority of the scenarios contain the German super tanks versus T-34s and a few SU-100s. Browse few of the late 1944 scenarios and 1945 ones and there's still a ton of Tigers versus one or two Stalin tanks and a majority of good old T-34s. I guess this is all realistic as it portrays the late war OOB up until the Swastika was flown over the Kremlin in 1945..... My suggestion: If going with Armor facing off - minimize the German super tank scenarios.

I feel that what is more important than the optional rules is to avoid a lot of the stock scenarios that were initially created to be played human vs. AI. There's really not much one can do to make the balance out.

[ernst]

I prefer EA on and VV off. I am not sure about AF because I always played with AF on.

I am also a fan of EF and WF. Anyway if it gets complicated to find out who likes what then I am willing to play Raising Sun as well.

In general I would just start the tournamnet after we got enough people and then we will see how it all works out.

Anyway thanks for having this idea and blowing life into the campaign series. ;)

ernst

[Crossroads]

The philosophy behind Mark's idea was to have people try something out of their comfort zones... To try something a bit different... And perhaps to find out it was fun :)

I would not worry about stock scenarios making life difficult. We would just select the proper scenarios as we go on, and given the experience available on teams, it just cannot go wrong.

Rod was the mastermind behind selecting many of these early war scenarios. Designers volunteering with their new scenarios, old grunts bringing up H2H balanced games they've enjoyed, it just cannot go wrong, can it.

Not to rush *too* much, I would just wait for that one evasive general to step in, and then we could start an eight-a-side.

People joining in, there's always scenarios available, and if necessary, some of the scenarios could be played twice. Just make up as we go along :)

Armour facing should not be a big issue on these early war scenarios? Unless there is a hatchet at the back of Italian tankettes the Ethiopian were really good to stick their spears in? :)

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

A few thoughts from my perspective alone.........

VV - If I played with it, my opp set it up and I didn't notice. Not something I worry about but it does appear almost nobody likes it, no worries here.

EA - My problem without it is if your unit has enemy to the left and to the right, that leaves 4 empty hexes that is considered their zoc. From my point, if they are not occupied by enemy units, they are also part of my zoc and if my troops had to retreat from the assault, the survivors should be able to force their way into one of the empty hexes rather than be totally destroyed. My only guess to this would be that the unit itself would be considered not fit for combat and that the time frame would be too short to reconstitute the unit from any survivors who made their way back to friendly lines. Either way, no worries here.

AF - For me, it's automatic to keep the guns pointed toward the enemy. If I move one of my tanks back, I automatically turn them toward the enemy. Correct me if I am wrong, the problem is when a tank gets fired at and retreats showing it's back, opp moves another unit forward to be able to shoot them in the back. Maybe the powers that be could program it to be that when a unit is forced back from firing they backed up instead of running like diarrhea. Still now worries here.

CinC - Doesn't really have to be one of the big boys, I just figured they would have the better chance to draw more players than one of the weaker players like myself. Still no worries here.

Overall, I think the rules to be used or not used should be to draw the most people. It could take a little longer, but could be done both ways if their are mixed feelings. Example, Von Earlman will only play a certain way he stated. His CinC has first choice on general to play and these are the rules he will play by, then opp CinC would have to ask his team for somebody that will play that way.

Also, with the few people so far, it could be adjusted to do just a WF campaign first, then do an EF one and then RS if there are enough people interested. It's whatever consensus everybody would like to try. No worries here.

I've kind of got another idea swirling in my head, but most likely may be too big for people. Would definitely have to be something where people come and go as they please and may have to be a ww2 by campaigns that would eventually be linked for a ww2. The problem I'm having with the idea is I think it would take some bookkepping to keep it in order and I don't know that anybody would want to take that on unless it could be set as a rotating type of command.

Overall, if something like this works with interested folks, something similar could be set up for Steel Panthers, PzCs and Squad Battles once that series gets more titles that would have French, British, Dutch, Greeks and the rest. Understand that all this starts with my brain having a mind of its' own and kind of swirls around like a soup until I get enough thought for a general outline with fewer details than I would like until others can add to it.

[Panzerjäger]

Hi Mike,

I do not understand all the posts, my
English is not so good.
We should play, how the most play : without EA and VV , but with AF .
When Sc. but are balanced, you can also
EA play. VV, I do not care.
I hope you all understand what I mean.

Greets Peter

[Crossroads]

No worries Peter, I understood you well. Your English is much better than my German...

I agree... Let us choose the optional rules most everyone are happy with. Maybe accommodate for peoples wishes, like having a new set up for every new round starting...

I just wasted an afternoon watching bad football... Should have played CS instead!