Feedback and features for tournaments

[DIVM]

Thanks again for an amazing tournament. It was overall very enjoyable, and the mix of scenarios was well balanced. I believe extending the timeline to 3weeks each round really helped, especially for the last scenario.

One thing that came up again and again, more importantly in the last scenario, was the default starting hexes, particularly, but not only, the reinforcements:
-If position and timing are a matched to Single Player scenarios, these are easily exploited. It is fair game, as both players have access to the SP scenarios, but it degrades the gameplay and means. While it was possible in the second scenario to exploit this with artillery in both Nato and Warsaw sides, it wasn't much of a deal breaker. However, in the third scenario, if your opponent goes right and fast to the hillsides facing the valley where the soviets will get reinforcements, it pretty much becomes a killing ground. My opponent for the third scenario, Muracley, did a perfect play this way and I never stood a chance. Not trying to diminish his play, on the contrary, it was great and I would've done something similar (surely not as perfectly positioned as he did) hadn't I encountered the weird wrong estimated time of arrival bug. In fact, he agreed with me that the starting default hexes for reinforcements in that scenario were an issue (I did hit him with the arty when playing NATO).

My point is that the game and matches would benefit from different default starting positions and /or timing compared to the SP scenario; ideally a much wider range where the player could choose. I'm not sure how easily implemented would this be; but this would force players to adopt more "realistic" tactics where different fronts are covered or at least watched, similar to the surprises we get in single player scenarios or campaigns, where you have a general idea about the area and timing, but not the exact location and time.

[Muracley]

As DIVM pointed out, the exploitation of enemy reinforcement positions by players is a genuine problem. While it meets the goal of securing victory, it also severely restricts tactical diversity. In my view, most scenarios involving long-duration ground reinforcements are unsuitable for tournament use. You simply cannot avoid being targeted by opponents who have already reached ambush positions ahead of time.
The solution proposed by DIVM—introducing variable reinforcement arrival times and dynamic reinforcement zones—is a solid one. However, I am not sure whether such features can be implemented under the current game framework.

[CapnDarwin]

I think the best thing we can do is either use non-reinforcement scenarios or create tournament scenarios on larger maps that offer more placement options to players. Down the road, we might be able to implement a more dynamic reinforcement system to deter spawn camping, a common issue in many tournament fights.

[DIVM]

I think the best thing we can do is either use non-reinforcement scenarios or create tournament scenarios on larger maps that offer more placement options to players. Down the road, we might be able to implement a more dynamic reinforcement system to deter spawn camping, a common issue in many tournament fights.

I'm not sure this is doable, but maybe creating "no-go" zones till reinforcements arrived would also work. The last map in the tournament had a huge area East that allows the Soviets different options to take back the city. But again, if your reinforcements are killed during the arrival turns there isn't much you can do with that area.

Or, provide strong off-map artillery that could only reach around the reinforcements area, to deter or make very risky spawn camping. This might be easier, and gives the games variety compared to Single Player.

[CapnDarwin]

1). No-Go zones won't really work as that is not really enforceable in a realistic manner and would not stop arty from being fired into the zones.
2). If you are not spotting the units getting intot he reinforcment area, having all the arty in the world won't matter as there are no targets to shoot at.

The problem is god-mode knowledge of the time and place of the enemy units' arrival. Knowing this, the opponent can just rain down arty, send helos in, or even position ground forces to intercept. The only fix for that is having a means to have the owning player note when and where the follow-on forces will go, so the opponent does not have the view. This would also be useful in a single-player game to handle any changes in planning during a battle. Once we get more features worked out for the new Modern game, we will need to turn more attention to this issue, as it will be a much bigger problem in the Modern game with the reach and ISR of the systems.

[DIVM]

Makes sense. Ideally a wide area where the player can select reinforcement areas would be great, as mentioned earlier. Looking forward to it.

2). If you are not spotting the units getting intot he reinforcment area, having all the arty in the world won't matter as there are no targets to shoot at..

You could always fired upon the most likely areas to deter the camping there (I often use part of the arty forces like that and more often than not hit something). Or if given disproportionate numbers of artillery just bomb the whole area. It won't solve the issue, but it will make it less attractive to exploit.

[pullg]

The only fix for that is having a means to have the owning player note when and where the follow-on forces will go, so the opponent does not have the view.

Is it practical to let the owning player "set up" reinforcements within a specific zone, the same way we set up forces at the start of a scenario? That would mean reinforcements would only spawn at the beginning of a command cycle, but having them "pop in" mid-cycle and stand around is frustrating anyhow. Or have the owning player set them up at the beginning of the scenario in the location and march configuration, and they "disappear" until it's time to spawn. Couple that with varying the arrival time a command cycle either way at the start of the scenario -- so the owning player knows exactly when, but the opposition doesn't -- and what's left to the opposition is well within the expectations of a decent intelligence estimate. In most cases, a competent S-2 shop could predict the general zone where and when incoming enemy forces would appear -- terrain, obstacles, and schedule only left so many options for large-scale movement. The major variable tended to be time more than route/location.

In fact, that wouldn't make a bad scenario...besides acting as a tripwire or trying to slow up advance forces, a large part of an ACR's mission was to keep tabs on advancing enemy forces...instead of awarding points for terrain held (which wasn't usually a cav mission anyhow), award points for enemy units identified by the end of the scenario.