Tournament

Tournament (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> The War Room

Message

Amadeus -> Tournament (11/20/2017 11:28:29 AM)
Anyone there who ever think about a Tournament. I just saw the Tournament page of Slitherine for some other games but that would fit for SC too. What do you guys think. Maybe it will last too long but we could choose Case Blue for example for quicker results.

Sugar -> RE: Tournament (11/20/2017 1:56:24 PM)
I`d like to see a tournament, but in order to judge about balancing; therefore I`d prefer the 39 scenario.

Birdw -> RE: Tournament (11/20/2017 2:05:05 PM)
I'd love to see a tournament as well.

PJL1973 -> RE: Tournament (11/20/2017 2:21:46 PM)
A tournament lasting the whole war would last too long though. I suggest playing the 1939 scenario but finish at the Fall of France. Each player plays two games against the same opponent at the same time, one as Allies and one as Axis. The winner is whoever causes France to surrender in the quickest time.

elveranomaslargo -> RE: Tournament (12/12/2017 9:29:54 PM)
Great idea the tournament. For me 1939 is "the scenario", the only complete one, not easy to substitute

GeneralFerraro -> RE: Tournament (12/16/2017 8:36:15 AM)
Honestly, I don't see a problem with a tournament lasting the whole war, which would imply games of two or three months perhaps. Can anybody tell what's the average number of turns to complete the 1939 scenario between two human players?

Taifun -> RE: Tournament (12/17/2017 10:06:54 AM)
I will also participate in a tournament. I`d prefer the 39 scenario

Birdw -> RE: Tournament (12/17/2017 1:49:21 PM)
I keep a spreadsheet of games I've played and a typical Storm over Europe scenario has taken 8-10 weeks. Sometimes when it is apparent who will win the games end earlier.

GeneralFerraro -> RE: Tournament (12/17/2017 5:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: birde I keep a spreadsheet of games I've played and a typical Storm over Europe scenario has taken 8-10 weeks. Sometimes when it is apparent who will win the games end earlier. You are a very methodical person, haha! No, but that's great, however, how many turns a day were you playing?

Birdw -> RE: Tournament (12/17/2017 5:40:54 PM)
Not so methodical just curious. I've been playing PBEM games for years and I only just started keeping track of them. I'm trying to stay above 50% wins but it is not easy with the level of competition!

Birdw -> RE: Tournament (12/17/2017 5:42:18 PM)
I forgot to mention about 2 turns a day on average.

GeneralFerraro -> RE: Tournament (12/18/2017 5:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: birde I forgot to mention about 2 turns a day on average. That's very interesting and useful information, thank you Birde. So perhaps for the 39' scenario, playing one turn a day, it would be about four months for a round. I don't see a problem with that, what's the hurry? Anyway, in order to get a tournament organized by Matrix/Slitherine, we need many forum participants to show interest, we should keep posting! [:D]

GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: Tournament (12/18/2017 6:18:43 PM)
I'd be in!

DerJager -> RE: Tournament (1/22/2018 12:52:59 AM)
I am good to go.

LLv34Mika -> RE: Tournament (1/22/2018 2:26:16 PM)
I would prefer the storm over europe scenario too. What I liked in other games (and our tennis club is the following system. ...........a .........b...c .......d...e...f .....g...h...i...j ...k...l...m...n...o p....q...r...s...t....u That should be a pyramid in the case that the format does change my formation. a can be challenged by b and c (only exception) everyone else can only challenge everyone in the same row to the player right above. So p can challenge k - o or l can challenge k and h, i and j. A winning player must not be challenged for some time (two weeks?) and a losing player must not challenge for the same time. Just to prevent being gamey... there are several other "rules" but before talking too much about that just let me know what you think about that system. I can only say that I like it because as soon as the system balanced itself you always have players that are not too strong or too weak. And inactive players move down in the ranking pretty fast (there are some simple rules for that) so the system stays clean (= active players on the top). Any comments? Let me know... cheers Mika

KorutZelva -> RE: Tournament (1/23/2018 12:31:41 PM)
Let's build that pyramid... Everyone what's your win-loss record? 2-1 (Hey, every pyramid needs a floor!)

LLv34Mika -> RE: Tournament (1/23/2018 4:00:04 PM)
can show a 0-1 on a good way to a 0-2 we really need a solid first floor!!! btw, challenger should choose the side.

Leadwieght -> RE: Tournament (1/24/2018 3:59:03 AM)
I'd be happy to play in a tournament with Storm over Europe. Ideally, I think every match between two players should be a mirror match, because I don't think the game is completely balanced between Axis and Allies. To help shorten the tournament and decrease waiting time for matches after the first round, I'd suggest having a "checkpoint" in late 42 or early 43 in which a player can be declared the loser if he's fallen seriously behind in geographic gains, economy, and tech (working on how that would be calculated). The pyramid scheme for match-ups looks interesting, but I don't fully understand it. Does it have a name? I'd look to research it on the web. For the record, I think my win/loss ratio in PBEM is about 70/30. I wouldn't mind a conventional, double-elimination tournament.

KorutZelva -> RE: Tournament (1/24/2018 9:56:40 AM)
That can be solved by bids. Challenger takes allies or bids a number of delayed german production scripts (0 to 5, from earliest to latest) to get axis. Defender passes or bids a higher number of scripts and it goes back and forth until someone passes.

LLv34Mika -> RE: Tournament (1/24/2018 3:47:58 PM)
Hi I think mirror games are even longer and slow down the game but it's worth discussing it. My idea would be that the challenging side picks the side. That way you will see a more active community. A bidding system to give the weaker side (I'm weak on both sides so far) an advantage is also ok but makes the results harder to compare. The system is called "ladder system" I think. I only know it in German but I found some pages in the internet. Just google ladder system or ladder system rules or ladder system pyramid. There are different versions but they all almost say the same. Some systems simply allow to challenge every player on your level of the pyramid and of the level above you. So no 6 can challenge 4 and 5 (same level) and 2 and 3 (level above). And of course it is always ok to give up. You lose the British Island, can't delay the DAK and your Russians get overrun? No need to play until the very end. Of course this system needs gentlemenlike behavior so if you are in holiday and won't be able to send any turns for two or three weeks just inform your opponent and it is fine. But not sending a turn for three weeks without saying a word is not ok. And if someone has to stay in hostipal due to an accident or something I think the last thing to worry about is losing the place in the ladder system. The question would be how to set up such a system? I can manage your bonds, stocks, options, investmentfunds etc but I have no idea how to set up a homepage :) The other question is should winner/loser just switch places or should the winner take the place of the loser and everyone else moves down one place to fill the gap? I prefer the last system to keep inactive players motivated to crawl up the pyramid again.

KorutZelva -> RE: Tournament (1/24/2018 8:18:38 PM)
Or we can all start on the floor and let the pyramid build itself. Mika I challenge you! [:D]

Leadwieght -> RE: Tournament (1/25/2018 1:36:31 PM)
And so it begins... Thanks Mika, for the information. Is one of the advantages of a ladder system (vs. a traditional bracketed or tree arrangement) that you can start the tournament without having a minimum number of committed players to fill out your initial brackets? BTW, I suggest that we start a tournament thread on the main SC3 level of the forum (one level up from this one). It will be more visible and possibly get more takers.

Leadwieght -> RE: Tournament (1/25/2018 1:44:16 PM)
Also meant to say that my own personal preference is not to have bids. I know mirror matches are slower, but IMO they really are the better way to get true comparisons of two players' abilities.

LLv34Mika -> RE: Tournament (1/25/2018 2:46:24 PM)
Yep, one of the advantages is that you can always join that ladder system. In our tennis club it worked like that: you can challenge ANY player except the ones of the upper half (or third or quater... whatever you want). If you win that is your first starting position. If you lose... well... last place :) So iirc we have three options concerning challenges 1. mirror games 2. bidding system 3. challenger picks side 1 is pretty slow, 2 makes the results uncompareable and 3 is an advantage for the axis player (I think... I alrady said that I'm weak on both sides) The only bigger problem I have with version 1 (besides the fact that it is slower) is that I just play two games and already have problems to remember what I did and even more important what my opponent did. I just mix up where to search for subs, what to build, what to research, etc. My favourite is still no 3. Yep, it is an advantage but at least that means that the players are eager to challenge.

crispy131313 -> RE: Tournament (1/25/2018 3:54:15 PM)
I think the system is a good idea but I think it would take a very long time to move up the pyramid given how long games take. If I could make a suggestion I would reserve the longer campaigns for the near top of the pyramid, allowing for quicker challenges at the bottom of the pyramid for those vying for an opportunity to challenge the top players. I would suggest a pyramid like so: ...........a --------------Champion .........b...c ------------39' campaign .......d...e...f ----------40' campaign .....g...h...i...j --------41' campaign ...k...l...m...n...o ------42' campaign p....q...r...s...t....u ---43' campaign Doing so would also eliminate possible cookie cutter strategies, as to climb the pyramid you would have to show your skills in all of the campaigns. Perhaps for the later campaigns (43' for example) an earlier end date may have to be enforced to check for victory conditions so that the Axis losing a war of attrition is not certain.

KorutZelva -> RE: Tournament (2/20/2018 1:43:45 PM)
Where are all of you cowards??? [:D] It's on, start challenging each other!

Sugar -> RE: Tournament (2/20/2018 3:13:43 PM)
Maybe rebalancing the game could help the cause.

crispy131313 -> RE: Tournament (2/20/2018 3:26:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sugar Maybe rebalancing the game could help the cause. I only played 1 vanilla match vs the AI during BETA so pardon my ignorance, which side is stronger now?

KorutZelva -> RE: Tournament (2/20/2018 3:29:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sugar Maybe rebalancing the game could help the cause. Shouldn't be a consideration unless people like their win-loss record more than actually playing. Accessing if one side (and by what magnitude) had the advantage was one of the side-benefit for doing all this. UK got some air planey boost with 1.12 which hopefully should narrow the gap a bit.

PvtBenjamin -> RE: Tournament (2/20/2018 4:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sugar Maybe rebalancing the game could help the cause. Agreed. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be that much interest in the PBEM game.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.375