Can i join in?
Britain please!!
PBEM World Cup
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Sorry for being late
Sorry I misread the initial thread, so if there is still room I'm in.
I prefer the US but will play as Germany if need be.
I prefer the US but will play as Germany if need be.
I'll lead the Italians to victory. I hope.
"History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave."
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
-Edmund Morris
[img]http://publish.hometown.aol.com/kenkbar ... tual-b-o-b
Re: More more
Well since I'm a sucker for minor countryOriginally posted by Mogami
Hi, the more the merrier. Too many Germans and Americans come on you cowards take those Hungarians, Rumanians Italians etc, I willl take what ever country the majority decide are the worst. (I am not afraid of no ghost)
I will take the Hungarians 
Tankhead
Hi guys - I hate to be accused of going wee-wee on the campfire. But ... the scoring system sucks. We know that. I kill everything in sight, run my opponent clean off the map - and because I lack maybe five points I get a "draw" instead of the solid victory I actually achieved.
Ideas on that?
Then: The way I see it, minor nations are going to have to be handicapped - if it isn't done the first time the minor nation player gets creamed - he certainly will - he will simply drop out. I know I would.
I like the sound of the idea and since really getting going with PBEM I enjoy it tremendously. For larger battles it is a lot better to be able to take your time, rather than being under the time constraint of "live" play. But with "match" play, there is going to have to be a time limit on a player completeing and mailing the turn, otherwise we know what happens.
We are finding there are very few scenarios that play well both solo against AI and PBEM out of the box - just doesn't work that way. We have to tinker with ratings and sometimes equipment - easy enough for two players to come to an agreement on these issues. Not so easy to satisfy 12 or 14 players - who is the authority that says a battle is "balanced"? ( I have always disliked that concept, but since its a game we have to live with the idea - it has justified all kinds of ridiculous tinkering.)
Great idea - depends upon how it is set up.
Shout me out of the place if you feel like it.
Bing
Ideas on that?
Then: The way I see it, minor nations are going to have to be handicapped - if it isn't done the first time the minor nation player gets creamed - he certainly will - he will simply drop out. I know I would.
I like the sound of the idea and since really getting going with PBEM I enjoy it tremendously. For larger battles it is a lot better to be able to take your time, rather than being under the time constraint of "live" play. But with "match" play, there is going to have to be a time limit on a player completeing and mailing the turn, otherwise we know what happens.
We are finding there are very few scenarios that play well both solo against AI and PBEM out of the box - just doesn't work that way. We have to tinker with ratings and sometimes equipment - easy enough for two players to come to an agreement on these issues. Not so easy to satisfy 12 or 14 players - who is the authority that says a battle is "balanced"? ( I have always disliked that concept, but since its a game we have to live with the idea - it has justified all kinds of ridiculous tinkering.)
Great idea - depends upon how it is set up.
Shout me out of the place if you feel like it.
Bing
"For Those That Fought For It, Freedom Has a Taste And A Meaning The Protected Will Never Know. " -
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Originally posted by Goblin
I disagree, and think it can be done. Same number of points, agreed. Same size map, k. After that, its to varied of a game to try to set limits. One pair might fight Brits/Germans, in the desert, early war, another pair might want late war Pacific. What matters, I think, is that everyone has fun, and plays fair.
It is just impossible to standardize it. Unless we all played the exact same scenarios ,with the same starting positions, etc. I wouldn't want that.
Goblin- A Goblin says try it anyways;)
Why not? Far be it for me to promote tradition, but ALL of the well run tournements use the same scenarios to avoid the tournament from morphing into a gamesmanship event. If every one has the same units on the same map, it becomes a test of tactical abilites, not one of who knows the OOB the best. At the unlimited level the game becomes little more then "Rock Paper scissors". Do you buy 6,000 points of arty and a few scouts, FO's and jeeps? Or is your oppnent going to do that so you buy scout killers and engineers. Or throw caution to the winds and go all armor and try to move faster then the arty? Or all infantry like a sea of ants swarming across the map, with more rifle squads then your opponent has arty shells. Is this about having the better tactical skills or being the best at gaming the system? With scenarios, the difference will be skill, because all else is equal. With 16 players, it would take 4 scenarios, with 32 players 5. So it would take a little time to make the scenarios, but It would take time to play them also, so once the first 2 were made, the scenario makers should be able to stay ahead of the players. 6 scenarios would be 64 players and IIRC 7 would make a double elimination tournament possible.
T.(Double Duce used to do this and had it down pat. I have seen him around here, get in touch with him).
I disagree, and think it can be done. Same number of points, agreed. Same size map, k. After that, its to varied of a game to try to set limits. One pair might fight Brits/Germans, in the desert, early war, another pair might want late war Pacific. What matters, I think, is that everyone has fun, and plays fair.
It is just impossible to standardize it. Unless we all played the exact same scenarios ,with the same starting positions, etc. I wouldn't want that.
Goblin- A Goblin says try it anyways;)
Why not? Far be it for me to promote tradition, but ALL of the well run tournements use the same scenarios to avoid the tournament from morphing into a gamesmanship event. If every one has the same units on the same map, it becomes a test of tactical abilites, not one of who knows the OOB the best. At the unlimited level the game becomes little more then "Rock Paper scissors". Do you buy 6,000 points of arty and a few scouts, FO's and jeeps? Or is your oppnent going to do that so you buy scout killers and engineers. Or throw caution to the winds and go all armor and try to move faster then the arty? Or all infantry like a sea of ants swarming across the map, with more rifle squads then your opponent has arty shells. Is this about having the better tactical skills or being the best at gaming the system? With scenarios, the difference will be skill, because all else is equal. With 16 players, it would take 4 scenarios, with 32 players 5. So it would take a little time to make the scenarios, but It would take time to play them also, so once the first 2 were made, the scenario makers should be able to stay ahead of the players. 6 scenarios would be 64 players and IIRC 7 would make a double elimination tournament possible.
T.(Double Duce used to do this and had it down pat. I have seen him around here, get in touch with him).
"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http
-
Capt. Pixel
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tucson, AZ
I'm in!!
Sorry it took so long to reply - took me a half-an-hour just to read the thread. (slow lips )
I'd like to lead the germans to their deserved victory. DUA!!
BTW, I tried a similar tourney with three friends. We agreed on a standardized tourney map that we all used for all contests. By the end of that, I was so sick and tired of that map, I'll probably never use it again. :p
Random maps of a fixed size sound better to me. Luck of the draw on terrain, eh wot?
)I'd like to lead the germans to their deserved victory. DUA!!
BTW, I tried a similar tourney with three friends. We agreed on a standardized tourney map that we all used for all contests. By the end of that, I was so sick and tired of that map, I'll probably never use it again. :p
Random maps of a fixed size sound better to me. Luck of the draw on terrain, eh wot?
"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson
- Stonewall Jackson
Best SpWAW player or....
World Cup. If we are looking to crown a SPWAW king then the set up should be the same for every battle. If it is to be a World Cup then the important thing is to get as many differant Countries into the contest. Since every country has units prior to WWII that should be the time period not Russians with 1945 stuff against Spain 1936. Is this for fun? Or are a battle of egos?
Small battles on small maps with pre war gear make the most even battles. Certainly some countries have poor troop rating but the points (true troop cost on) should balance that out. And then again a little skill will not hurt. First assign countries by lot/random picks of neutral party. Then make quads of 4 countries. Play a round robin (3 battles) the 2 high scores of each quad advance to next round. the two low scores go home.
This will keep us busy with plenty of small PBEM/on line battles
for some time. This system would allow as many players as there are countries. If more players we can begin assigning countries again (from bottom up. So first we need to list all the countries and rank (seed) them. Countries will be assigned from the bottom up (the bad countries are more evenly matched then the top ones) As soon as we have agreed as to the worst country assign it to me.
Small battles on small maps with pre war gear make the most even battles. Certainly some countries have poor troop rating but the points (true troop cost on) should balance that out. And then again a little skill will not hurt. First assign countries by lot/random picks of neutral party. Then make quads of 4 countries. Play a round robin (3 battles) the 2 high scores of each quad advance to next round. the two low scores go home.
This will keep us busy with plenty of small PBEM/on line battles
for some time. This system would allow as many players as there are countries. If more players we can begin assigning countries again (from bottom up. So first we need to list all the countries and rank (seed) them. Countries will be assigned from the bottom up (the bad countries are more evenly matched then the top ones) As soon as we have agreed as to the worst country assign it to me.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
People. I just want to play, and I want to play the country I choose, in the year that my opponent and I agree on, with terms we agree on.
If I win, I will make new arrangements with my next opponent. I understand some things need to be set, like map size and points, but I am NOT playing some random country in 1938 or so. I am also noy going to fight 12 battles to advance one round. I like the win-advance,lose-out thing.
If I lose, bye bye. If I win, next.
PS-it is quite possible for two players using the same country play eachother.
If I win, I will make new arrangements with my next opponent. I understand some things need to be set, like map size and points, but I am NOT playing some random country in 1938 or so. I am also noy going to fight 12 battles to advance one round. I like the win-advance,lose-out thing.
If I lose, bye bye. If I win, next.
PS-it is quite possible for two players using the same country play eachother.
Let's do the final roster. Then randomly match the opponents. Each pair sets their own rules and may the strongest /luckiest palyer win. No custom maps/rules/years/force makeup etc. The players decide what setup they want.
Lets vote on the rules:
Points: 4K/?
Turns: 10/?
The only thing to decide is how to declare a victory. I suggest having the following very simple rule which will also energize the combat and bring a twist to the game: by the end of the tenth turn whoever controls the most vhexes wins. Nice and simple.
This is not DC so it shouldn't take us weeks to figure it out.
Lets vote on the rules:
Points: 4K/?
Turns: 10/?
The only thing to decide is how to declare a victory. I suggest having the following very simple rule which will also energize the combat and bring a twist to the game: by the end of the tenth turn whoever controls the most vhexes wins. Nice and simple.
This is not DC so it shouldn't take us weeks to figure it out.
"It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up."
--MUHAMMAD ALI
--MUHAMMAD ALI
-
Capt. Pixel
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tucson, AZ
-
Capt. Pixel
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tucson, AZ
pre-41
You're right. 5K is really high for pre-WWII.
We're we going to a graduated set of battles throughout the war ('40, '41,' 42, etc.) or pick a specific era?
I personally like the pre-war, early war myself. In that case 3k to 4k is mor than enough points.
We're we going to a graduated set of battles throughout the war ('40, '41,' 42, etc.) or pick a specific era?
I personally like the pre-war, early war myself. In that case 3k to 4k is mor than enough points.
"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson
- Stonewall Jackson
A suggestion
Since this was Red's idea, why don't we let him work out the details based on the views in this thread ?
Oh, and i would like to join too, and if anybody fancy a friendly warm-up i'm game
spenser2u@yahoo.se
Oh, and i would like to join too, and if anybody fancy a friendly warm-up i'm game
spenser2u@yahoo.se
-
TimeTanker
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 4:13 am
- Location: Chico,CA
- Contact:
Listing
As Y'all can see I didn't go on my trip so I am here to continue my current matches.
red (SU)
Goblin (US)
Gary Tatro (US)
Fallschirmjager (Finland)
TimeTanker (Marines)
Brutto-Bob (Germany)
Mogami (Holland?)
BORO (SU)
Scharfschütze (Germany)
Viking2 (Canada)
Capt Pixel (Germany)
Belisarius (Finland)
M4Jess (Professional Troublemaker/TagTeam Artist)
Orzel Bialy (Whoosie....with a sprained wrist... )
Hades (Italy)
Easy8 (Whoosie?)
gmenfan (US)
Tankhead (Hungary)
3/2 ACR (SU)
Ironfist (Germany)
radboy223 (French)
Mojo (Finland)
skryking (Rumanians)
Knife (GB)
Ok the only ones that haven't expressed a desire for a country are Easy8 and Orzel. But, I am sure somewhere soon they will speak up.
red (SU)
Goblin (US)
Gary Tatro (US)
Fallschirmjager (Finland)
TimeTanker (Marines)
Brutto-Bob (Germany)
Mogami (Holland?)
BORO (SU)
Scharfschütze (Germany)
Viking2 (Canada)
Capt Pixel (Germany)
Belisarius (Finland)
M4Jess (Professional Troublemaker/TagTeam Artist)
Orzel Bialy (Whoosie....with a sprained wrist... )
Hades (Italy)
Easy8 (Whoosie?)
gmenfan (US)
Tankhead (Hungary)
3/2 ACR (SU)
Ironfist (Germany)
radboy223 (French)
Mojo (Finland)
skryking (Rumanians)
Knife (GB)
Ok the only ones that haven't expressed a desire for a country are Easy8 and Orzel. But, I am sure somewhere soon they will speak up.
"You can run...but, you will only die tired"