SCT - BRAINSTORMING (CMx1)

Sempai

FGM Major
REGISTERED USER
Messages
5,116
Likes
463
Location
Germany
#1
Dear Gentlemen,

Please, put in that thread what You want or miss in tournaments and campaigns! Let me know Your ideas and needs even if they may sound crazy! Don´t bother Yourself if it´s feasible or not! That will be my part. I can´t promise that all comes true not even that it will become successful. But I want to make the SCT the best allround CMx1 tournament of all times - to use that metaphor.

Thanks in advance!

Greetings :)
 
I

idiot94

Guest
#2
One thing I want, is quite practical: rather than the gameplay itself, I am more concerned about the length of the entire operation and the total number of players involved.

Apparently, the more players, the longer the operation, the bigger the fun will be. Unfortunately, in reality, there is serious drawbacks when things get too big: people can't commit that much and that long. Then people start to drop out and eventually the thing dies gradually.

So maybe we should somehow limit the total # of players upto something like 4 or 6 at most. If there are more players, break them into two independent groups. Very often at the beginning most players are very motivated. However, after a few weeks, one of them might be distracted by some reasons (it always happens, either by RL things or by the situation in game), then he slows down. And then everyone else has to wait for him. Then some1 loses patience, and then things slow down even further. And this goes on till nobody is in it any more.

So we need something like the FFT's forced deadline to indict discipline on the participants.

And the game rules will have to cope with this player rules. It is difficult to make it "right", but basically the smaller the whole thing is, the easier to manage it.
 

Sempai

FGM Major
REGISTERED USER
Messages
5,116
Likes
463
Location
Germany
#3
Funny You mention that! Almost identical thoughts were said over at WeBoB. I can assure You all what You mentioned is already thought of in the way to Your likeness. 6 players max., replacement players list, strict deadlines (much stricter then in FFT). Further it will start as a Club-vs-Club-tournament if it goes as I want. That has a few advantages. First of all one fights strangers - nobody knows the strengths and weaknesses of the opponents. Second in the row is every club need only one secured HQ and every club can take advantage of all his players for discussing tactics - even if the most of them don´t participate on the tournament. Further one will have more the feeling to fight an opponent and not "only" a mate of the same club who pretends to be the "enemy". The High Commands of every club order a "real army". Means they all have the same object they want to fulfil. I hope that sounds well enough for You.

Greetings :)
 
I

idiot94

Guest
#4
BRAVO!!

Great design man, I am looking forward to this and plus: fighting for one's club has this unique "honor" feeling attached, sweet! :)
 

Owl

FGM Corporal
REGISTERED USER
Messages
94
Likes
2
Location
Holland
#5
Good initiative, here 10 points from me:
  • Scenario's with new realistic maps!
  • Units already on the map but also a part you can select / buy your own preferred units!! (For example in the FFT you now exactly the units of your opponent because we play mirrored, when you receive a force of 1000 points and can buy for a 1000 you never know exactly what forcemix your opponent has available)
  • Planes involved where possible (yea and that they attack some own units or are not effective, thats the fog of war!)
  • No fixed turns
  • Tanks where possible with a platoon commander and not 4 individual tanks
  • Good proposal battes against other clubs and unknown opponents and specially from other CM clubs.
  • Force mix about 2000-3000 points
  • Medium maps for manoeuvre warfare
  • Always give extra TRP for both units in all scenario's. When you attack or defend, you need to plan your firesupport.
  • Let's start!!
 

Sempai

FGM Major
REGISTERED USER
Messages
5,116
Likes
463
Location
Germany
#6
I agree with most of Your suggestions. I did already think of the mixed force selecting (given and self choiced troops). But that is difficult to manage if You want it balanced. If the players don´t lament about balance I would be glad to make it that mentioned way. Same counts for planes.
Why would You like tank platoons instead of individual tanks? If platoon commander is killed all remaining tanks of the platoon lose one level of experience. So the remaining tanks are weaker as before. Force seize shouldn´t get over about 2000 points in average. That´s my own experience. Most of the players have neither the durance to do such big battles nor can keep track about it. They get bored really fast. And finally the rests between turns become longer and longer until it all vanishs in oblivion. :(
Medium maps are fine often. But they still hold delay in itself. On small maps the fight starts quick and is decided the same way. For longer OPs, Campaigns, Tournaments I think it´s better to hold the maps so small as possible. But that depends in the given situation. So it could be one has to do medium or even huge maps because that are the smallest possible seizes for the battles.
TRPs are nice. That´s something what has to be tested yet for SCT.
Concerning variable turn number: That would be another advantage if one has not to play mirrored. One can do it the way You prefer. But for mirrored Battles You know my opininon. ;)

Even if my answer may sound a bit reluctant - Nice suggestions, Owl! Keep going that if something more occurs to You! I´ll see what I can implement.

Greetings :)
 

Owl

FGM Corporal
REGISTERED USER
Messages
94
Likes
2
Location
Holland
#7
Concerning the tank platoon, why do we fight with infantry platoons with a command element? Here you also keep this C2 element in a secure position. For the tankplatoon same recept!!!
 
I

idiot94

Guest
#8
hmm... To be honest and frank, Owl, I disagree with most of your points :p (sorry, bud :) )

I think your mentality is still in the single battle settings. your points #3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 are all good choices for single battle parameters. They add more uncertainties to the battle. However, it will make the play time of that battle much longer ---- quite often, even double (or more) the length ---- comparing to the fixed turn, 1500pts, small or small medium map game.

But for a linked campaign, the uncertainties come from another source, and significantly. That is, the multiple battles. Also it is a vital task to keep players hooked through these multiple battles. If a single one of them is too "exhausting" (which could be practically or emotionally or both), it is very likely some people will drop out. On top of that, if for most part of the "campaign", the player is basically playing a big scenario, then what is the point of playing this campaign anyway? Didn't we want this campaign to offer a different experience to the players? -----most of whom had probably played many many single battles by now.

I do agree, however, with points #1 and 2. But I believe those are already prepared by SEMPAI though :)

As for tank platoon, either way is fine. They are different, but it is the same to both sides, so it does not matter.

Sorry if I am too blunt :) But please do not get me wrong, I truly appreciate your input. I am just offering my thoughts ---- I am not even necessarily correct though :)
 
W

Wardog

Guest
#9
I'm for whatever the final outcome is. Anyway, please include me as a player. I'm available and have a reliable email service now.
 

Sempai

FGM Major
REGISTERED USER
Messages
5,116
Likes
463
Location
Germany
#10
I got that, Wardog! Sadly, currently I have no idea how to do so. But You can be sure as soon as something changes so You can participate I´ll get in touch with You.

Greetings :)
 
K

kashash

Guest
#11
Because we've had some bad debacles of players losing all the units borrowed from the entire unit's pool and then other players from the team are affected I think that the players in MBC should be more engaged with the HQ by posting screenshots of their current situation, then they should wait until they receive further orders on what to do next. The higher generals would be giving them instructions just like in real life what manoeuvers they should take. So that way more equipment and men would be saved because no unecessary mistakes would be done and more fun listening to orders on the HQ and then going back to the in-game battlefield and executing them just like they were instructed to prevent anymore losses.
 
Top