The Southern Storm Fall Tournament is here!

[ProCamlo01]

We are excited to announce our next Flashpoint Campaigns: Southern Storm tournament will begin 16th October! Congratulations again to our Spring champion Muracley on their hard-fought victory.

Our Fall Tournament will feature 3 rounds:

Round 1: Crossing the Waldnaab West German forces prepare to buy time to let refugees escape over nearby bridges, all the while holding off a push by Czechoslovak forces racing against the clock to capture crossings over a major river and continue their advance.

Rounds 2 & 3: The Heilbronn Gambit NATO gambles on an ambitious counter-offensive with a full brigade and plentiful M1 Abrams tanks in the hopes of throwing back regrouping East German forces. The Warsaw Pact forces must skilfully defend against the onslaught if they have any hope of staging their own offensive.

We look forward to seeing you all test your tactical skills in Southern Storm one last time before we shift to Flashpoint Campaigns highly anticipated next evolution: Cold War, sign up here: https://www.matrixgames.com/tournaments

[Tcao]

Hi, why round 2 and round 3 are the same scenario?

[CapnDarwin]

I let folks know there are questions here. Hopefully, someone can chime in and get you an answer.

[MaximKI]

Hey Tcao,

So far, we've run 3 different tournaments and have switched up the format based on player feedback. For the first tournament, we had a unique scenario for each of the 3 rounds, and we found that players didn't have time to really try different strategies and really get a feel for each scenario. For the second, we went with the same scenario for all three rounds and found that players began to exploit some aspects of the scenario, as well as a general sense of repetitiveness.

For this final tournament for Southern Storm, we decided to go for a compromise and use round 1 as a kind of warm-up scenario, while rounds 2 and 3 would be the main course. The Heilbronn Gambit, we think, will be the most fun and interesting scenario, so extra time with it should give players room to try different approaches and improve their performance.

[BadOptics]

We are excited to announce our next Flashpoint Campaigns: Southern Storm tournament will begin 16th October! Congratulations again to our Spring champion Muracley on their hard-fought victory.

Our Fall Tournament will feature 3 rounds:

Round 1: Crossing the Waldnaab West German forces prepare to buy time to let refugees escape over nearby bridges, all the while holding off a push by Czechoslovak forces racing against the clock to capture crossings over a major river and continue their advance.

Rounds 2 & 3: The Heilbronn Gambit NATO gambles on an ambitious counter-offensive with a full brigade and plentiful M1 Abrams tanks in the hopes of throwing back regrouping East German forces. The Warsaw Pact forces must skilfully defend against the onslaught if they have any hope of staging their own offensive.

We look forward to seeing you all test your tactical skills in Southern Storm one last time before we shift to Flashpoint Campaigns highly anticipated next evolution: Cold War, sign up here: https://www.matrixgames.com/tournaments

Crossing the Waldnaab still has the unarmed BMP issue for the Czech 1/57 & 2/57 battalions. I know the team is deep in working on FCCW, but it would be nice to not have our BMP armament pilfered like it's the 90's

[CapnDarwin]

I've let folks know the scenario is busted. Have not heard of a fix or a new scenario yet.

[BadOptics]

How are the organizers dealing with no shows or those who submit maybe a turn or two before the round ends?

[MaximKI]

How are the organizers dealing with no shows or those who submit maybe a turn or two before the round ends?

There's a system in place where players who are inactive will be penalized in their point scores. We recommend all players do their best and stay active in the tournament to get the highest scores possible.

[BadOptics]

How are the organizers dealing with no shows or those who submit maybe a turn or two before the round ends?

There's a system in place where players who are inactive will be penalized in their point scores. We recommend all players do their best and stay active in the tournament to get the highest scores possible.

Rog. Just wanting to make sure as there's only a few more days for Round 1 and my opponent hasn't submitted any moves. It's a bummer that I haven't really been able to play, but if that means I can get paired up with someone who is active next round then I guess that's fine. I sent my orders for NATO on 16 October (can't submit orders for WP until my opponent sends his).

[DIVM]

Hey, so I posted this in Steam a few days ago but I didn't get any answer, just wanted to make sure the team is aware:

"I just got a message that Ive been removed from the tournament for not completing a minimum of turns in one side of the mirror matches. I know this works as a clock running to see how long does one player go without making his turn, but I felt disappointed that is so rigid.
On one side, Ive got 12 turns in the match that I was Player 1, meaning I get the match running (started at the 2nd or 3rd day of the round). On the other mirror match, I only have 6 turns, but I was Player 2, meaning I had to wait till day 6th of this round for the opponent to finish his first turn so I could start playing.
I'm not blaming the other player, since he got stuff going on, same as I had stuff going on during the second week. Im even ok taking a penalty on the score of that match, but it feels overkill removing a player that is being active when he goes as Player 2 of a match for simply having a few more hours than his opponent in the clock. Especially when the other match hasn't timed out.

I wish the system could be improved, otherwise what's the point of pouring so many hours into each round..."

I think it was pretty clear I wasn't a no-show, however I got kicked out by something I can't fully control. Maybe it's using Slitherine auto system for tournaments like FoG, where turns are much shorter and double or triple in number. This doesn't translate well to FC. Why not a penalty instead?
Kicking out players so easily is not the best strategy considering there are just a bunch of us in the tournament.
I got a no-show opponent in round 1, and I get kicked out in round 2 even when I submitted my first turn shortly after the round starts...

[Muracley]

Hello, tournament Organizers.

I'm Muracley, I had a great time during the matches, but there are still some flaws in the current tournament format. For this reason, I'd like to share some of my personal thoughts and suggestions.

In the three 2025 tournaments, the format adopted by Matrix/Slitherine has been the points system. Players compete for the points available in each match through wins and losses, which determines their ranking in the next round. Meanwhile, players who engage in unsportsmanlike play will be disqualified from the tournament. Given the large number of participants in most cases, this is certainly a good way to shorten the tournament schedule. Furthermore, players who engage in unsportsmanlike play are directly eliminated, and the opposing side also receives a certain amount of point rewards in return. On the surface, this seems to have a certain degree of rationality.

However, the inherent flaws of this tournament format are difficult to eliminate. First, a match requires coordination between two players to complete. However, due to factors such as real-life work commitments or time zone differences, some groups struggle to finish their matches within the tournament deadline. As a result, the stronger players in these groups are unable to earn the points they rightfully deserve. Second, it is difficult to define the point rewards for the winners of groups where unsportsmanlike play occurs. This is because the system struggles to determine whether the winners had the intention to compete actively, and both excessively high and excessively low point rewards would be unreasonable.

Take this year Fall Tournament as an example: in the second-round matches between Uberhauskaninichen vs. DIVM and Tcao vs. zhuangcheng, neither match was completed on time. As a result, Uber and Tcao missed the opportunity to earn higher points. In contrast, In contrast, in the match between BadOptics and Galahad78, player Galahad78 secured 1100 bonus points without shedding a drop of blood. As a result, Galahad78 outperformed many competitors in the rankings and claimed the third place. Similarly, many other players who obtained the 1250 bonus points effortlessly without sufficient competition have received a score that most actively participating players actually struggle to achieve. These are all irrefutable evidence of the loopholes in the tournament format.

I understand that some players may not be able to spare sufficient time to participate due to real-life commitments, even though they possess a certain level of skill themselves. However, the unjust point allocation of the points system constitutes a gross disrespect for those players who competed earnestly. Why is it that players who dedicated more time and effort receive fewer points than those who didn't take a single shot? Or that players with sufficient strength let the opportunity to gain high-value points slip away due to their opponents' passive play? In the long run, a small number of players may even deliberately delay the match, and they won't submit their match saves until the very moment of the deadline, thus seizing the victory improperly.

Therefore, I propose that the future FCCW Tournaments could adopt one of the following three schemes:
Option 1: Replace the points system with a knockout system and extend the tournament duration.
Option 2: Run the points system in parallel with the knockout system. Specifically, select the top 8 or top 16 players based on the points ranking from the first one or two rounds, and then group them into pairs for the KO stage.
Option 3: It is advisable to hold a hardcore competitive tournament (the knockout system) and an entertaining fun competition (the points system) simultaneously.
While all the above options may require the tournament organizers and players to invest more effort in organizing and participating in the matches, they can minimize the impact of unsportsmanlike participation and luck factors, thereby providing a fair competitive environment for all actively participating players.