S
Sumac
Well, you have a week and a half so get cracking.
DoD:S Realism Tournament Details
- Thread starter c-whit?
- Start date
- Status
Well, you have a week and a half so get cracking.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,840
More follow-up, it's a lot:
1. You say that the team with the most points (not caps) after the hour long battle wins. To clarify, points = rounds won and a round won = eliminating all enemies?
2. Also, what do you mean each side will have their own starting point on the campaign map (in response to the Allies not being able to attack Germany on the first night). The rules do not explicitly state the starting points of each side, nor which territories you cannot attack from your own. For example, why can't I attack Germany from Belgium, or England from France? Maybe consider adding a dis-incentive to attack, such as a default defense value that deters attackers because it would cost too much to attack. Give Germany and England +1000 points at the start of the campaign and neither wide would be willing to attack unless/until they had secured enough other territories that the expenditure would become worth the risk.
3. Also, I'm sure you've found that most maps seemed to be skewed towards the Axis, it's just the nature of the game. This won't apply, necessarily, to custom maps that people don't know very well, but for most of the known ones it's definitely the case. In the case of a territory without a map beneficial to the Allies, I would suggest (and you've no doubt considered) limiting or adding the usage of restricted classes e.g. more than one sniper, no defensive MG, etc. More appropriately, another player on the disadvantaged team would offer two benefits: 1) get more players involved in the battles and 2) server as another body and gun to help the team. An innovative solution would be to allow the CINC of the disadvantaged team a certain number of "substitutions" per campaign so that they can add a really good player to help them at no cost to attack or defense points.
4. Consequently, I think attack/defend points should be computed based on the team with which you are attacking/defending. I think this makes good sense, in that a territory with relatively few defense points (because of such skilled players involved) is still well-defended when considering their talent. You can't compute attack points based on the entire Army just because CO's will cut out the lower-rank people to field their best players because the incentive to field the low-rank players is gone after initial computation. Do you see what I'm saying? Basically, it can lead to abuse and gaming the system.
5. Which brings me to this point. Victory should not come to the Army who controls the most territory, instead consider adding a "weight" to the territories e.g. Germany is 10 points, Belgium is worth 3, therefore at the end of the campaign the side with the most territory points is the winner. Right now there is no incentive to attack a territory you recently lost, however if that territory was worth 3 times as many points as another you'd want to have it back very badly. Then you can start adding all kinds of modifiers to make it really complex such as successive defense bonuses, attack bonuses.
6. Extend the campaign. 4 weeks isn't long enough for decisive victory, not when one night can effectively end the race for territories in one night.
7. Add depth (to future iterations). The possibilities are soo exciting for a system like this. You need battle bonuses like Initiative (win 2 straight battles, gain an additional rocket or point modifier), "For the motherland" (Defense bonus for fighting on your own soil). Etc. Expand, get more people involved, do MORE hahah YES, I want it.
Okay, so I'm basically trying to turn this event into an RTS but I think there is a LOT of growth potential. I'm certain we could find enough people to hammer out complex details (um, count me.) and also find players who are willing to make complex strategic decisions. Basically, I'd like to see a system that isn't entirely about the way the bullets fly in-game but instead about the tactical considerations made in the war room.
I can see you turning this into an event where leaders stand-out not by the decisions they make in-game, but also the decisions they make in the war room. Do we attack the Netherlands for 2 points while spending a small number of attack points or do we attack France for 5 points at the cost of many more attack points? Do we invest defense points into Holland or beef up Scandinavian territories?
Delegate your CO's to crunch the numbers and come up with scenarios for the control of his or her territory. Make it their responsibility to understand the implications of any battle decision to occur in that territory. Add depth to everything.
I think the rank system in-place is weightless. I doesn't mean much to be a CO, or a Lieutenant, etc., all you have is a little command authority that doesn't really go far in-game. Give us something we can really get into outside the game, a real command or real responsibilities. Right now it's CINCs with 100% responsibility and everyone else just kind of goes along with the flow. The need for ranks is, well, non-existent under this system. It's cool to say I'm a Colonel, but everybody else is going to look at me and wonder why it's cool because I won't have any added responsibility other than to be successive in the chain of command (which is altogether unnecessary).
More later, thanks for reading!
1. You say that the team with the most points (not caps) after the hour long battle wins. To clarify, points = rounds won and a round won = eliminating all enemies?
2. Also, what do you mean each side will have their own starting point on the campaign map (in response to the Allies not being able to attack Germany on the first night). The rules do not explicitly state the starting points of each side, nor which territories you cannot attack from your own. For example, why can't I attack Germany from Belgium, or England from France? Maybe consider adding a dis-incentive to attack, such as a default defense value that deters attackers because it would cost too much to attack. Give Germany and England +1000 points at the start of the campaign and neither wide would be willing to attack unless/until they had secured enough other territories that the expenditure would become worth the risk.
3. Also, I'm sure you've found that most maps seemed to be skewed towards the Axis, it's just the nature of the game. This won't apply, necessarily, to custom maps that people don't know very well, but for most of the known ones it's definitely the case. In the case of a territory without a map beneficial to the Allies, I would suggest (and you've no doubt considered) limiting or adding the usage of restricted classes e.g. more than one sniper, no defensive MG, etc. More appropriately, another player on the disadvantaged team would offer two benefits: 1) get more players involved in the battles and 2) server as another body and gun to help the team. An innovative solution would be to allow the CINC of the disadvantaged team a certain number of "substitutions" per campaign so that they can add a really good player to help them at no cost to attack or defense points.
4. Consequently, I think attack/defend points should be computed based on the team with which you are attacking/defending. I think this makes good sense, in that a territory with relatively few defense points (because of such skilled players involved) is still well-defended when considering their talent. You can't compute attack points based on the entire Army just because CO's will cut out the lower-rank people to field their best players because the incentive to field the low-rank players is gone after initial computation. Do you see what I'm saying? Basically, it can lead to abuse and gaming the system.
5. Which brings me to this point. Victory should not come to the Army who controls the most territory, instead consider adding a "weight" to the territories e.g. Germany is 10 points, Belgium is worth 3, therefore at the end of the campaign the side with the most territory points is the winner. Right now there is no incentive to attack a territory you recently lost, however if that territory was worth 3 times as many points as another you'd want to have it back very badly. Then you can start adding all kinds of modifiers to make it really complex such as successive defense bonuses, attack bonuses.
6. Extend the campaign. 4 weeks isn't long enough for decisive victory, not when one night can effectively end the race for territories in one night.
7. Add depth (to future iterations). The possibilities are soo exciting for a system like this. You need battle bonuses like Initiative (win 2 straight battles, gain an additional rocket or point modifier), "For the motherland" (Defense bonus for fighting on your own soil). Etc. Expand, get more people involved, do MORE hahah YES, I want it.
Okay, so I'm basically trying to turn this event into an RTS but I think there is a LOT of growth potential. I'm certain we could find enough people to hammer out complex details (um, count me.) and also find players who are willing to make complex strategic decisions. Basically, I'd like to see a system that isn't entirely about the way the bullets fly in-game but instead about the tactical considerations made in the war room.
I can see you turning this into an event where leaders stand-out not by the decisions they make in-game, but also the decisions they make in the war room. Do we attack the Netherlands for 2 points while spending a small number of attack points or do we attack France for 5 points at the cost of many more attack points? Do we invest defense points into Holland or beef up Scandinavian territories?
Delegate your CO's to crunch the numbers and come up with scenarios for the control of his or her territory. Make it their responsibility to understand the implications of any battle decision to occur in that territory. Add depth to everything.
I think the rank system in-place is weightless. I doesn't mean much to be a CO, or a Lieutenant, etc., all you have is a little command authority that doesn't really go far in-game. Give us something we can really get into outside the game, a real command or real responsibilities. Right now it's CINCs with 100% responsibility and everyone else just kind of goes along with the flow. The need for ranks is, well, non-existent under this system. It's cool to say I'm a Colonel, but everybody else is going to look at me and wonder why it's cool because I won't have any added responsibility other than to be successive in the chain of command (which is altogether unnecessary).
More later, thanks for reading!
S
Sumac
1- The winning team will be the team with the most amount of Realism rounds won. Defenders will be defending, Attackers attacking obviously. There is more detail on a lot of this, just not sure how much they want out yet.
2- This has changed a bit, the point system has been simplified. Each team will decide where they want to attack from, the only exception will be some rule that requires the Allies needing to have played a few rounds before trying to attack Germany.
3- Map choices will be made by each Cinc, so we should have a good balance. Weapon restrictions will be in place, not the same as Realism, but a modification.
4- The point system has been changed around quite a bit, think closer to RISK during election rounds.
5- That is something to consider. There have been other ideas kicked around including Allies must conquer Germany to win and the Axis must conquer X or all territories to win.
6- This has been discussed.
7- There are more things going on behind the curtains with the COs. I know they want to keep it fun while at the same time leaving room for things to grow and improve in the future. Many things to come. ^^
2- This has changed a bit, the point system has been simplified. Each team will decide where they want to attack from, the only exception will be some rule that requires the Allies needing to have played a few rounds before trying to attack Germany.
3- Map choices will be made by each Cinc, so we should have a good balance. Weapon restrictions will be in place, not the same as Realism, but a modification.
4- The point system has been changed around quite a bit, think closer to RISK during election rounds.
5- That is something to consider. There have been other ideas kicked around including Allies must conquer Germany to win and the Axis must conquer X or all territories to win.
6- This has been discussed.
7- There are more things going on behind the curtains with the COs. I know they want to keep it fun while at the same time leaving room for things to grow and improve in the future. Many things to come. ^^
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,718
Cant wait.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 105
Epic
S
Sumac
To clarify the point about extending the length past 4 weeks, there will be more of these tournaments, this is just the first of hopefully many. New COs will be chosen and there will be new campaigns.
Just remember, the more interest we have on the first one will determine where this thing goes. If it is wildly popular and people have fun, it will be worth CWhit's time and energy to not only continue, but to improve upon the system. If people start to flake out it would be more difficult to see the value in asking him to try and get more together. A lot more time and energy go into these things than most of us realize.
Just remember, the more interest we have on the first one will determine where this thing goes. If it is wildly popular and people have fun, it will be worth CWhit's time and energy to not only continue, but to improve upon the system. If people start to flake out it would be more difficult to see the value in asking him to try and get more together. A lot more time and energy go into these things than most of us realize.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,718
+100000000000000000000000000000.8675309
This man is a genius, so I recommend you listen to him. Trust me, Im a Doctor.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2008
- Messages
- 334
This. Is. Amazing. I will fight and kill anything that stands in my way of being at this event!!
wow. there must be a lot of work to just get this going. Good Job guys!!
I wish i could say for curtian that i can attend. However I only have a 2gb internet limit, which is at best, very unreliable at the same time, so I would put my name down only in pencil at this piont of time. But I will be all over the next one. Only 5weeks till im back in the USA.
- Just a question I have. How do we decide who is attacking. Say, the Axis bid to attack Belgium, but the Allies also bid to attack France, in the same round. Who attacks what? and who defends what?
I wish i could say for curtian that i can attend. However I only have a 2gb internet limit, which is at best, very unreliable at the same time, so I would put my name down only in pencil at this piont of time. But I will be all over the next one. Only 5weeks till im back in the USA.
- Just a question I have. How do we decide who is attacking. Say, the Axis bid to attack Belgium, but the Allies also bid to attack France, in the same round. Who attacks what? and who defends what?
S
Sumac
It depends on points. The team with more points will be the attacker the other team will be the defender.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,718
Then does the other team lose those points that they bid? Or do they stay so you can bid even more points the next round?
S
Sumac
They lose the points they bit if they lose the Realism match for the territory. This is still being kicked around a bit however.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,718
So what if you put your remaining points on a territory, yet the other team still outbids you, then you proceed to defend, and win, do you STILL lose all of your points that you bid?
S
Sumac
If you win, you do not lose your points. The system is still being worked out, everything could change at a moments notice, or on the whim of the Supreme Overlord.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,718
SUPREME OVERLORD!? Time for a Rebellion
- Status
