|
|
Post by varagon on Aug 17, 2011 20:32:07 GMT -5
As I've adjusted and learned more about the "behind the scenes" stuff that goes on, I get more and more excited about the future for Darkson Designs.
On the heels of Gen Con, one thing I've recently begun thinking about is a tournament program. Before I came on board late last year, a system was in place, but it wasn't public and things were being tweaked.
With that in mind, I'd like to ask all of you forumites what you think would make a great tournament. What things need to be included, what doesn't work, what would be cool and fun. What about prizes? How would the AE: WWII factions interact? How would you pair varying factions, etc. Will a tournament system even work for AE games?
I'd like to see what your thoughts are, as fans, so start posting away.
|
|
|
|
Post by CmdrKiley on Aug 18, 2011 15:59:39 GMT -5
Maybe not as much of a tournament thing but more of a convention idea and a way to attract new players. How about a multiplayer one sided (co-operative) battle using pre-determined forces and an elaborate terrain setting with multiple objectives. Wow, lot of words there. Basically a nice big attractive terrain layout where all the players play somewhat co-operatively against the Demo Team. From what I've seen at conventions, layouts that are pretty big and attractive get lots of attention from photos, curious onlookers and people looking to try out a new game. Photos and battle reports will end up on blogs, forums and websites and result in free advertising if fun was had by all. Usually the more imaginative the scenario and visually enticing the more it's going to get talked about. And that's just free advertising. Furthermore, if it's a little different than you're usual AE-WWII scenario, you'll probably get some experienced players involved just to try something new. Some ideas could be: 1) Urban battle with lots of city ruins that fill up the table. Think of the Battle of Paris in the fluff in the core rulebook. Allied detachments scattered all over the table while hordes of Abgerzoldats and Strumaffe issue forth from various spawning points supporting Wehrmacht and SD detachments. Allies must shut down spawning points to cut the flow of abominations (like Ambush Alley). 2) Assault on a Base or Outpost. Doesn't take as much terrain to do, just some interesting terrain would work best. Something like US Army Detachments must hold off packs of werewolfs and other SS baddies while protecting an ARPA Telerobotics Post long enough for the Robot Troopers to return. Another one could be Germans must hold off allied assault so that a V-2 rocket can finish fueling and launch. To make matters more interesting (and pulpy), the evil SD Kommandant has tied up the beautiful MI5 Agent to the rocket in which the Allies must stop from launching at all costs. 3) Commando Raid - Something like a prison rescue, a POW camp would look cool ( see EBob's paper terrain stuff) where allies must get as many POWs out of the camp. Another would be something like the raid seen in the movie Attack on the Iron Coast (I just watched this a few days ago). British Commandos stage a daring raid to destroy a German dockyard in France, by ramming a minesweeper full of explosives into it. You'd need to make a set of naval docks and have a small ship. Commandos start by getting off their launches and have to destroy the German Gun Posts and create as much havoc before the minesweeper crashes. Then escape with as many Commandos as possible. 4) Quest - Players could have detachmets from various factions all looking for the same objective hidden somewhere on the table. Each also has a different secondary objective. Then throw in an unexpected twist that pits players into teaming up against the new threat or going it alone against everyone. Ideas for this could be searching for hidden secret weapon on crashed plane on deserted island in the Pacific. Hidden threats could be cannibalistic mutant natives with all sorts of traps, dinosaurs, giant insects, sharkmen, etc. Granted any of these would require some terrain-smiths and lots of prep work done well in advance a convention. |
|
|
|
Post by CmdrKiley on Aug 18, 2011 16:30:00 GMT -5
A few more ideas. How about something based on Kelly's Heroes (I wanted to call this one Kiley's Heroes). Several American Detachments (at least 1 Tank Detachment) are racing to get the gold held in a bank in a small village. It's guarded by several detachments (including at least 2 Tank Detachments). The twist with the game is to reduce the Germans drive low enough to get them to "negotiate" and help them get the gold. What neither side knows is that inside the vault the gold is guarded by a bunch of Strumaffe. Of course the trick is you must have a pretty intricate village layout, so lots of buildings so that a single small tank can zip through the maze and take on the Tigers. Another one could be an elaborate version of the A Bridge Too Far Scenario with a very large or multiple bridges on a table. Have it at night and provide some means of some commando sneak attacks. Perhaps each side has a detachment that is deployed on the other opponents side of the table just to mix things up. Another could be sort of a dungeon crawl type setup, not as much like Incursion but more like Hour of Glory or Bunker Storm. A large bunker complex is pentrated by enemy commandos. A maze of hallways and lots of tight corners to fight with. The bunker has lots of secret weapons, or perhaps is haunted. The bunker might be a bit complex but could be made from paper by modifiying the Bunkerstorm Bunker kit. One could make it very Wolfenstein'ish or like The Bunker. |
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Aug 18, 2011 20:43:34 GMT -5
Those sound great for some campaign play, but not quite for sure how they'd hold up for tournaments where the scenario is easily ran by an organizer, be it a store owner, volunteer, or fan.
Some modifications on your ideas wouldn't take too much, and this is more good thought than what I've had to begin with!
|
|
|
|
Post by lawndart on Aug 18, 2011 21:29:14 GMT -5
The hard part I have in balancing games locally is tanks. There are always a couple of people who bring them (and usually heavy ones), and the best way we've found to even the playing field is the liberal use of terrain.
|
|
|
|
Post by CmdrKiley on Aug 18, 2011 23:29:57 GMT -5
Yep! Terrain is life!
Not only does it gain spectators, but it pretty much means life and death in a skirmish game.
|
|
|
|
Post by CmdrKiley on Aug 19, 2011 15:18:40 GMT -5
Well for something a bit more of a tournament with a campaign feel, how about this.
All players must bring 2 Detachments.
Setup a map, broken into sectors. One sector for each player that is registered. Each player is secretly assigned a sector, give them a card showing which sector they have and which ones border theirs.
Each player, chosen at random, will select which sector they choose to attack with one of their Detachments. No sector may be attacked by more than 1 attacker. Pretty much every player should have 2 games to play, one offensive and one defensive and this may take some scheduling. Scenarios are randomly selected or are predetermined based on the sector.
Players who's offensive detachment wins the scenario capture that sector and win some sort of advantage (like an additional Special Order, drawn at random or based on the 'theme' of the sector, for the next round). Player's who's defensive detachment win the scenario keeps that sector. Players who lost both offensive and defensive are eliminated from the tournament.
The captured sectors are then absorbed and the map changes to reflect so. The round is completed and players then choose which neighboring sectors they will attack next.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrueRonin on Aug 19, 2011 17:43:15 GMT -5
I wouldn't play in a knockout tournament myself. The risk of sitting on the sideline and watching others play is not my idea of fun. At a convention without prizes and other games to try out, with no entry fees specifically for the tournament, then maybe... But the risk of getting knocked out after only two battles in a skirmish system which might have as little playtime as an hour or two, would be a major turn-off for me, and I would choose not to go to the tournament. When you consider the time invested, the money involved for travel, hotels, food, tickets etc. this would most likely scare off too many players.
The idea of turning a tournament into an epic campaign game on the other hand sounds very cool. The games would be designed ahead of time with specific objectives tied to each table and specific advantages tied to holding the sector for either sides. Then splitting the players up into factions and giving each faction some kind of overall strategic objective to complete while trying to gain the upper hand tactically. The one side that completes most of it's factions objectives can claim victory at the end of the tournament. It would still be possible to declare individual winners of the different categories (eg. best general, best painted, fair play etc.).
Taking inspiration from real operations, planned or otherwise (eg. Operation Seelöwe or Operation Torch) and turning them into unique games like the ones Kiley has already given great examples off, is what I would try to acomplish with the predesigned missions.
Granted, such a tournament would take a lot of work and thought from the organizer but I would jump at the chance to play in such an adventure.
|
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Aug 19, 2011 18:08:05 GMT -5
Granted, such a tournament would take a lot of work and thought from the organizer but I would jump at the chance to play in such an adventure. Then lets work on it! |
|
|
|
Post by TrueRonin on Aug 19, 2011 18:24:26 GMT -5
Sure... Let's spitball.
Basics first.
How many players?
Scope of play?
What approach? A tournament or an event?
What kind of battles (multiplayer, open ended, timed etc.)?
Any ideas of what kind of system for rewards and penalties the players must play for?
How to implement Strategic play?
How to implement tactical play?
Those are the basic questions I can think off at the moment...
|
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Aug 19, 2011 19:17:31 GMT -5
If you think about this from my end, the design of the tournament system has to be something balanced, and can handle upwards of 32 players or more, as needed. Everyone gets to play until the end. Swiss format, for example, would be great.
In our case, we need a defender and an attacker, randomly chosen in round 1, and alternating each round, if possible. By the end of the tournament, you may have been the defender twice in a row, or vice versa if things work out.
You will have to set a cap on each round or you'll get games that last forever. Possibly by the end of the sixth round or even time limit.
From here, things get muddy. Developing scenarios that don't favor the defender or attacker. Can we look at other historical and tournament systems for cues? We need our own spin to make things fun and unique to the AE system. Incorporate secondary missions from the rulebooks, or create new ones.
Winning the game gives you 3 points, a loss or tie 2, and each secondary mission gives you 1 additional point. So, you could lose, but tie in overall points.
Giving players additional orders for winning will create a snowball effect- Especially for those serious tournament players VS people like me who aren't- I'd get hosed by the 3rd round. lol
Creating a story from the scenarios would be up to the tournament organizer. Campaigns linked to tournaments are definitely different monsters and I consider out of my current scope of what I'm trying to achieve.
Strategy VS Tactics- Can you give me an example? Not quite for sure the difference here in this discussion.
Award players on the following as mentioned: Winning a round, gaining secondary objectives, and painting/modeling/history/fluff. I consider the hobby aspect crucial (Incorporating painting into a tournament is something that can be debated, but I don't want it to mess with the player rankings much.).
Prizes:
Do you do first, second, and third, with optional , best general, sportsmanship, hobby, etc?
or
First American, British, German, Russian, sportsmanship, and hobby?
I'd like to award little medalions with faction pressed into them (or 1st-3rd and the darkson logo maybe?)- game counters in affect, with certificate for sportsmanship and hobby.
Legal lists come from printed books and any over the wire material. Over the Wire material must be printed and available for the TO to view. Superheroes and a few other things should be optional fun things to add in.
More later...
|
|
|
|
Post by TrueRonin on Aug 19, 2011 20:53:41 GMT -5
I was tired when I wrote the following, so I might be rambling a bit or misunderstand what you were getting at.  If you think about this from my end, the design of the tournament system has to be something balanced, and can handle upwards of 32 players or more, as needed. Everyone gets to play until the end. Swiss format, for example, would be great. I agree, everybody gets the same amount of games. Swiss draw is of course prefarable. This can also be done while dividing the players into factions. In our case, we need a defender and an attacker, randomly chosen in round 1, and alternating each round, if possible. By the end of the tournament, you may have been the defender twice in a row, or vice versa if things work out. I'm not sure I follow you here? I would maybe make the players dice-off to see who get's to be attacker or defender... Adding a +1 modifier to the previous rounds winning factions detachments perhaps? You will have to set a cap on each round or you'll get games that last forever. Possibly by the end of the sixth round or even time limit. Time is my prefered method of limiting games. Depending on the overall timeframe and the number of games being played, these must be divided amongst the days of play. For tabletop games this usually means something like 5 battles lasting about 3 hours over two days, but with a skirmish system like AE: this could probably be more (as many as 10 games perhaps?). From here, things get muddy. Developing scenarios that don't favor the defender or attacker. Can we look at other historical and tournament systems for cues? We need our own spin to make things fun and unique to the AE system. Incorporate secondary missions from the rulebooks, or create new ones. Yes, I believe it would be a good idea to ”lend” concepts from any other game that works well. That is the whole point to adding to a gaming experience. A game might be fun even though one player is destined to ”lose” from the start, if the scenario is well balanced in accordance with this. Eg. the mission could be a ”delay the enemy for as long as possible, before withdrawing from the table”, game. Even though the enemy wins the table it would not necessarily mean that he won the game... This could even be the theme for the whole tournament. The Allied are desperately trying to hold Tobruk against the Axis offensive. Or the battle for Crete. The Germans did lose but depending on the outcomes from each battle they could fare better or worse than the historical counterpart did. Winning the game gives you 3 points, a loss or tie 2, and each secondary mission gives you 1 additional point. So, you could lose, but tie in overall points. Math is not my strong side, so I always try to keep it simple. I think I would prefer that winning would give you 3 points, losing gives you 1 point and either player can get +1 point for completing their secondary objective. Which means that you always get ahead for winning. Then your opponent will be able to reduce the difference and not even the score. I wouldn't feel like I won if my opponent and I tied the score. I would consider it a draw instead. Giving players additional orders for winning will create a snowball effect- Especially for those serious tournament players VS people like me who aren't- I'd get hosed by the 3rd round. Lol I was more thinking of a reroll or something minor. Because I know that balancing such bonuses is difficult and might unintentionally turn a game into a lopsided affair. Bonus Detachment experience could also be considered as a way to award players, but then again this could be considered a snowball effect (however, I believe that the Swiss draw system just might be enough to balance this out though). Creating a story from the scenarios would be up to the tournament organizer. Campaigns linked to tournaments are definitely different monsters and I consider out of my current scope of what I'm trying to achieve. I am not sure I see them as two different things. Strategy VS Tactics- Can you give me an example? Not quite for sure the difference here in this discussion. Well, AE: games are perhaps not the best suited for the strategic overview. But I was thinking down the line of anything that goes on at the tables are tactical and will affect the state of the strategic battle balance. Anything game related that goes on between games is strategic (decision making, rewarding players bonuses, scores etc.). But both things have an impact on the flow of the campaigns final outcome (without interfering with the actual games being played). Making sense, I am not sure I do? Award players on the following as mentioned: Winning a round, gaining secondary objectives, and painting/modeling/history/fluff. I consider the hobby aspect crucial (Incorporating painting into a tournament is something that can be debated, but I don't want it to mess with the player rankings much.). I agree... Painting is not supposed to be part of the game score. I always advocate for a seperate competition for the painters to compete in. I would personally feel snubbed if I would win all my games, but lose to a painting tie-breaker because I am a lousy painter, especially if I beat my opponent on the table too. Prizes: Do you do first, second, and third, with optional , best general, sportsmanship, hobby, etc? or First American, British, German, Russian, sportsmanship, and hobby? No, I would only do an overall winner for the game tournament (announcing the two runners up, but not award them). However I would add a Fair play award as well as a best painted too (with prizes). I'd like to award little medalions with faction pressed into them (or 1st-3rd and the darkson logo maybe?)- game counters in affect, with certificate for sportsmanship and hobby. I've seen all sorts of things here, diplomas, certificates of participation and so on. What the DD crew have in mind for their game is not up to me. But any officially sanctioned event/tourney hosted by a Partisan could get access to this ”thing”. Legal lists come from printed books and any over the wire material. Over the Wire material must be printed and available for the TO to view. Superheroes and a few other things should be optional fun things to add in. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Aug 19, 2011 21:09:45 GMT -5
Sounds like we are very close to reading on the same page!
From here, we just need specific scenarios- Taken from the book and new ones- to get us started.
|
|
|
|
Post by CmdrKiley on Aug 23, 2011 9:37:30 GMT -5
You know Soylentbob had an excellent map-based campaign system setup, The Kiev Imposition. The campaign mechanics for conquering map sections and were really good. Unfortunately our campaign died early due to about half of the Allied players that signed up didn't show most of the time and the new Axis players got sick of playing against the same Allied player all the time. However, you might want to contact Soylentbob for his notes. |
|
