Battle Scenario Tournament?

Poll ended at Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:52 pm

It sounds like fun...
100%
7
A silly idea...
No votes
0
 
Total votes: 7
User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Battle Scenario Tournament?

Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:50 pm

I was curious if there would be any interest from anyone, in a tournament of the battle scenarios of AACW. This would involve 8 members first competing at Bull Run, the 4 victors would then compete at Shiloh, and the final 2 would battle at Gettysburg for the tournament championship. At the rate of 4 turns per week this would only take 9 weeks to complete (with 36 turns having been transferred by the 2 finalists). This is not officially being organized, I am simply curious what the interest in this might be. Any thoughts, ACW players?

User avatar
Lewis Armistead
Conscript
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:37 pm
Location: Pickett's Division Army of Northern Virginia

Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:14 pm

Interesting idea Mortar. "Sounds like fun". :)

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:27 pm

The only problem is these scenarios are so unbalanced

User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:03 pm

You could be right, but which factors are you referring to that cause it to be unbalanced? ...Just in case a "counterbalance" can be found somehow.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:37 pm

I once tried Gettysburg scenario as CSA an could not win against AI. And that is big unbalance given the fact I won 1864 CSA Campaign against the AI.

User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:21 pm

Well, I'm not sure. Athena might just be putting the whoopin' stick to you.

Did you play it a few times, trying different things out? Also, did you switch and play as the USA to see if you would win each time?

Like I said, you could be right, but I think these scenarios would be excellent arenas for competition, each person would play North and South and each would have been working with (largely) the same resources.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:13 pm

I have tried playing as the USA, and it is all too easy. There is only one objective, Union holds it at the begining, has to hold it only 5 turns, and outnumbers CSA 1,5:1. It is impossible to lost with these odds.
I consider these scenarios to be a battle tutorials (and you have to have a Gettysburg scenario in a Civil War game).
East and West campaigns are worthy playing in a PBEM if you look for a shorter campaign.

User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:21 am

The East and West '62 campaigns are good, but they are significantly longer and when each person plays as north and then south, one round would take longer than an entire battle scenario tournament. And having 3 battle scenarios lends itself well to a 3 tiered competition.
The scenarios may well be unbalanced for resources, but so was the situation. The balance for the purpose of the tournament, would be that each person plays as both north and south, with overall victory based on the outcome of both of these matches. With the recruitment factor removed, each competitor would have the same troops/resources with which to use to the best of his ability.

User avatar
Mortar
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 4:04 am
Location: California

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:26 am

Perhaps it isn't an ideal tournament. But it certainly would be quick. :w00t:

Return to “PBEM and multiplayer matchups (all games)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests