What makes a Combat Mission Tournament "good"?

[Horza Omanid]

Howdy all.

I am a current participant in SlySniper’s Field Warrior Tournament for CMFI, and previously played a small part in OnePingOnly’s CMCW tournament. After playing several matches between the two tournaments, I found myself enjoying these games greatly. This made me wonder, what makes these community run Combat Mission events, specifically tournaments, “good”. What are the general trends you all find most effective in making these scenarios successful, and enjoyable for you to take part in, and why?

Leaving this rather open ended, as I would love to see what the community finds most important about them, rather than laying out any key factors or metrics I personally find important to my own definition of “fun” in Combat Mission.

Thank you for your time in reading/replying!

 

[JTimo]

For me it is simply that a tournament adds value to CM. I rarely play an individual PvP battle. The last time I did play an individual game it was a multi-player game. So, I guess the lure is that a tournament is a "mini war" where one player or side achieves overall victory.

 

[Brille]

Well I haven't played that many tournaments yet but the AARs and overall stories that come out of them interests me the most I guess.

To see how each individual player tackles his problems, different plans and strategies and so forth. And to compare it with your own steategy in the end.
Did I choose wrong? What did other players better/different than me? Etc.

Tournaments in the form of the currently running "Operation Konrad" I like the representation of an actual goal/frontline. Your team has to achieve something in the end (free the troops at the Budapest pocket) and not just win some trivial battles. I know it is simply just that in general but the story around it makes it feel different somehow.

 

[Stafford]

I enjoy tournaments as they place more weight on the outcome of your battle, either as part of a team so to contribute to overall victory, or against other players on the scoreboard, as something of a metric in comparing your effort against others.

PvP is the best form of this game IMO, but without the ladder anymore there isn't so much at stake when winning or losing. The flipside to this is that one doesn't feel as inclined to pick 'for the win', ie, not picking Panthers every game as Germans because anything less is suboptimal.

 

[Guardsman]

similar to Brilles comments, i like a tournament to have an end goal so that the battles you fight lean towards something rather than just a series of individual fights. I am really enjoying Slys current tournie as the battles seem well thought out and forces pre-chosen, and the battle themes are different each time. Op Konrad has the possibility of being a fantastic tournie too, though the balance seems a bit out initially with round 1 but a massive effort has gone into creating the ambience of the operation. I am not a fan of tourneys of slam-bam cherry picking QB forces, i like force size & rarity restrictions to keep it more realistic. Its great to pitch yourself against a variety of opponents each round. Also prefer a bit of historical context in a tourney with a back story.

 

[mTk]

@Rico runs it.

 

[jackal]

like Brille and Guardsman already said.
I think the Konrad campaing is perfectly done u get the historical perspective and story for each round and track. its a team effort and really both teams got tested with challenges and decisions.
so for start take a look at the Konrad campaing its setup great.