|
TheJSFFenix -> RE: A TOAW Forum tournament? (1/8/2022 4:02:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
A big part of running a "good" tournament would be the selection of the scenario to play. I'm pretty sure that about 10 turns is the most we're going to get from the typical wargammer because of real life issues, ill health, snowstorms, earthquakes, etc. So it must be one of the smaller scenario's I suppose. Also, there's the problem of finding a scenario that is "balanced" for either side. Either that or best 2 out of 3 games might be a way to mitigate an unbalanced scenario ( ??? ). Also, may I reccommend a dedicated thread just for the tournament; a place to post results of matches, screenshots, etc.
I very much agree on having a dedicated thread to post the results, since the results need to be verifiable. I would be probably doing an AAR if I were playing, but I understand writing one is not anyone's cup of tea, so I suppose some other rule would have to be set in place.
As for possible scenarios, that I think are fairly balanced and quick to play:
* Korea 50-51 - The Norm's classic, 27 to 52 turns BUT it's pretty quick to play because there aren't actually that many units to control and only a few strategic decisions that need to be taken rather early on and by the halfway point, rest is just tactics, so it would be fairly quick to exchange turns. Both sides can win here and each side gets opportunities to punish the mistakes so the match is tense till the end and people could feel less compelled to throw in the towel and stop responding.
* The Middle East Israel - Arab scenarios are all pretty short, however I don't know anything about how balanced they might be, as I never had an opportunity to play them.
* Fulda 55 and Fulda 76 both take place on a small map and last for 18 turns but again, no idea on how balanced it is and if NATO doesn't just get steamrolled to the west map edge like in most Cold War scenes.
* Balkans 12 and Balkans 13 last for 11 and 14 turns respectively and they could be a pretty fair fight, but the low proficiency and low variety of units would probably make things pretty clunky and unfun.
* Cambrai 1917 - One of Bob's scenarios, small map, both sides get to go on the offensive and all in just 17 turns. However it is also true to it's WW1 nature and because of that it feels appropriately sluggish.
* Kaiserschlacht 1918 (mini) - Much more mobile than Cambrai, but it has a sudden death chance which might prove a bit problematic, and the Entente doesn't exactly get to go on the counteroffensive.
* Crusader 1941 and Tobruk 1941 run for 17 or 25 turns, but as for how well balanced they are or if they're quick to play, I cannot testify.
* Soviet Union 1941 is 28 turns long and Corps-sized which means that it's not as time consuming as FITE, while the basic version of it is pretty balanced judging by Bob's insights and his AAR. Same could be said for the sister scenario Germany 1945 (although the Race to Berlin variant of the latter seems to be pretty skewed towards the Western Allied side).
* Two Weeks in Normandy is pretty short and fun to play, while also being pretty balanced, with allied advantage not being as overwhelming due to being set in the early stages of invasion and the drive inland.
Of course any of the above scenarios could easily be modified a bit with an editor in regards to adjusting the proficiencies, shock values or unit equipment amounts if we really want to fine-tune it to be competetive, those are just my picks in regards to which of the scenarios I see as having a balanced concept, with both sides being able to get that victory message in the end, or draw if both make the right decisions.
|
|
|
|
