Matrix Games Forums

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.

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.

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.