View Full Version : I wish to lead a new tournament petition drive......
CyberGeneral
10 Oct 04, 16:25
Those in favor of starting a new tournament note your preference here...............
We already have a team vs team format in place for the next tourney, but we're going to have to put it on hold for the time being. (We were going to do a N. America vs Euro tourney using JL's custom scenarios).
So please, feel free to discuss what you'd like to see, and we'll whip something together!
Great idea. I would like to participate. How about a Braunschweig tournament? This one has drawn quite some interest recently, but it is a complex scenario, so hard to say whether it is balanced or not.
CyberGeneral
10 Oct 04, 17:50
We already have a team vs team format in place for the next tourney, but we're going to have to put it on hold for the time being. (We were going to do a N. America vs Euro tourney using JL's custom scenarios).
So please, feel free to discuss what you'd like to see, and we'll whip something together!
When is it going to start?.......Didn't I sign on for that about a few months ago?........
Yes, but we haven't really had the official signup. We'll do that when we're getting ready to begin that particular tourney. There are obvious delays we have to deal with, the most serious of which is JL's unfortunate circumstances at the moment. But we all wish him well, and when he returns, we'll take up the tourney mantle once again, and get back to this one.
In the meantime, I suggest we all kick around ideas for alternate tournament ideas. We've recently introduced a new style of tourney, the elimination method, which gives a higher likelihood of seeing some different faces taking the gold. There's also the standard team format, which has been the main focus of our tourney play here for years.
Perhaps we should start with working out which kind of format we'd like to go with. There must also be other methods we could explore beyond these two!
Let's hear it, boys!
As Northern America vs Europe is going to be a team tournament, maybe it would be a good idea to have an elimination one if two tournaments can be managed near-simultaneously, to have the best of both. As for scenarios, Braunschweig sounds good, provided an identical array of TOs is fixed at the onset for all players.
My two cents.
An elimination tourney requires several scenarios. And I do believe that Braunschweig is a bit of a monster, iirc. It might prove to be a little too large for a format in which we'd need to play 3 or 4 rounds. Might take 4 years to complete the tourney.
Good point, definitely. Wild idea : a WW1 tournament using Todd Klemme's scenarios - balanced and manageable in size?
We need to get more input from the membership at large, and the actual players in particular. I'll run a tourney any way that you guys feel would be the best method. That's how we ended up with the WitW elimination tourney, through a round-table type chat where people put forth suggestions, and we voted on what to go with. There were certainly some growing pains, but overall, I think the format went well.
CyberGeneral
10 Oct 04, 19:09
Nemo's right.........If the one Tournament on hold is a team Tournament, and we run one now while we wait for it, then it should be an eliminations tournament using small scenarios......
Would that mean using mirror game format???....If so, might I suggest going into (event engine) any scenario chosen to make sure it is tournament ready (such as making sure ALL games end on the NOTED end turn as some have a chance to continue past...or in a game that has % chance events of reinforcements showing, changing the engine....Unless the scenario game engine was corrected, some would be the "lucky" ones of getting extra troops while others would "suffer" from bad luck of not seeing them).....
Bdr.Mallette
10 Oct 04, 19:13
What about a tourney which consisted of a 5 star general and the sub-ordinates would be other ranks. The sub-ordinates would be in charge of certain formations each in the scenario but receiving general orders from the supreme commander. Once one sub-ordinate has completed his moves, he then e-mails the .sal file to the next sub-ordinate and he fulfills his duties and so on. The moves planned for a certain turn could be decided upon by a meeting of the officers with the 5 Star general and certain objectives for each turn could be decided upon or altered accordingly as long as the supreme commander agrees and there are no arguments from the rest of the group. This would lighten the burden a lot for each person, move wise, and once each field officer has finished his move, the supreme commander is in charge of assigning air units to certain battles or assigning reinforcements to particular battle fronts where needed most and the like, then sending it to the opponent's Commander and the rest of his team to see final product. Then the enemy proceeds to do the same with their group of officers.
Do you know what I mean?
This could shorten tourney time lengths drastically as well as being able to speed up play if a person cannot play that week or sumthin, the supreme commander could always fill in his place.
How to plan the moves for the next turn and how everyone could discuss it is the problem. Chat room or e-mails i guess would be obvious means.
Could have team arguments as well because the skill levels will vary but ya never know, people may get along...lol.
Anywho..... thats my plan!
:D
My personal preference would be mirrored rounds. But not elimination. Everyone plays all rounds. Determine points in some way and whoever has most points is the winner. It's not really much fun getting eliminated in the first round and then you are out. One might not be able to get into another tourney for months. :cry:
Also, it seems to me there are probably a small handfull here who could be counted on to win all tournaments. Perhaps there should be handicapping based on how many tournaments someone has won in the past. I realize this sounds a bit Socialist but I'm trying to think of a way to give the slovenly stepping stone masses a chance. :hmmm:
Regards,
A Slovenly Stepping Stone.
Martin Schenkel
10 Oct 04, 22:25
This could shorten tourney time lengths drastically as well as being able to speed up play if a person cannot play that week or sumthin, the supreme commander could always fill in his place.
These types of games are alwyas very slow, and take a long time to play. With say two teams of four players, in an ideal world (which is never the case anyways) of one day per player, it would still take 8 days for one full turn.
Bdr.Mallette
11 Oct 04, 00:27
hmmm, true enough.
But.... if a few people could agree on a day they will receive a turn and do it, well, ya never know. If it's been done before and has a bad track record then trash the idea.
Chit! :D
Martin Schenkel
11 Oct 04, 00:37
hmmm, true enough.
But.... if a few people could agree on a day they will receive a turn and do it, well, ya never know. If it's been done before and has a bad track record then trash the idea.
Chit! :D
The biggest problem is the different time zones. There's usually a good mix of Europeans and North Americans, which makes specific timing difficult to co-ordinate. It'd be nice to find enough dedicated players, but all of these types of games that I've been involved in, have fallen apart. I really enjoy this style of game, but finding the right people is difficult.
I'd like to see a scenario on a pretty balanced map with cease fire and zero recon for the first 5 turns for both players and some TOs to choose your ideal force mix (say both players have a similar basic force but can strengthen their air force or panzer divisons or get a generally higher replacement rate or better supply situation... many possibilities)
That would give us some pretty interesting games, because both players have the same potential starting position but based on their strategical purchases and tactical setup before the cease fire is lifted it could get really wild :)
But please no 'Blitzkrieg' kind of scenario, didn't liked that one too much, the forces were far too even and the map to narrow to really suit my tast, but it got the right basic idea.
Also, it seems to me there are probably a small handfull here who could be counted on to win all tournaments. Perhaps there should be handicapping based on how many tournaments someone has won in the past. I realize this sounds a bit Socialist but I'm trying to think of a way to give the slovenly stepping stone masses a chance. :hmmm: I don't like the idea of having to play some handicapped vet because I'm a rookie or because he's won such and such tournament - that would be unfair to both parts methinks.
Besides, you'll miss the opportunity of being pitted against a vet and beat the hell out of him :D :banana:
I'd like to see a scenario on a pretty balanced map with cease fire and zero recon for the first 5 turns for both players and some TOs to choose your ideal force mix (say both players have a similar basic force but can strengthen their air force or panzer divisons or get a generally higher replacement rate or better supply situation... many possibilities)
That would give us some pretty interesting games, because both players have the same potential starting position but based on their strategical purchases and tactical setup before the cease fire is lifted it could get really wild :)
But please no 'Blitzkrieg' kind of scenario, didn't liked that one too much, the forces were far too even and the map to narrow to really suit my tast, but it got the right basic idea. Interesting but you'll need several of these if it's an elimination tournament. And apart from tweaking pre-existing scenarios, someone will have to create them, which would basically transform the tourney in a huge playtesting festival. Not that it would be bad (that's what we've been doing with Wintergewitter after all, in a late development stage of the scenario), but you'll run the risk of finding yourself say on turn 10 with a yet-undiscovered critical flaw in the scenario. At this point, you can say goodbye to any form of result from the tourney (and lots of pissed-off / infuriated comments probably ;)).
That's why I would second battle-tested and proven scenarios rather than made-on-purpose ones.
My 0.02 € :D
Well, I haven't designed a scenario yet (apart from some basic test scenarios) so I can't tell how much work it would require to design such a scenario, but I think that it should be reasonably easy to test because the TOs will all be activated at turn one and than both players have four more turns to deploy their forces, without knowing what choices the other side did make and how he sets up his forces. So there isn't that much that could go wrong with the events, no unexpected Grozny sudden victory trigger or an army that was supposed to deploy not showing up :)
The map could also be reasonably simple, I wouldn't expect a real world equivalent, just a fantasy map (because it's supposed to be reasonably balanced, so that both sides have some rivers to defend behind, maybe some rough terrain, some mayjor cities / VP locations to defend).
The real challenge would be to balance the TOs so that there is no uber-TO combination that everybody would select because it gives you the biggest bang for your money. I think some reasonable choices would be paratroopers, increased replacements, increased naval buildup (ships + sea transport = invasions become possible), wunderwaffen (you get a one time disband of some advanced weapons), some additional panzer divisons, general mobilization (several more Infantry and weak militia units), spy network (much higher theather recon), improved logistics (higher supply level), additional air fighter units or additional bomber units....
Now, if any seasoned scenario designer reads this, feel free to use my idea and give us that uber-scenario :)
viridomaros
11 Oct 04, 06:29
i like the idea of kraut, it looks very interesting, the scenario i'm playing with saper is more or less something like that except that there are no TO (easy to tweak though), the map might be a bit too large and may be the scenario is too long (100 turns) for a tournament :confused:
Bloodstar
11 Oct 04, 06:45
[QUOTE=Kraut]Well, I haven't designed a scenario yet (apart from some basic test scenarios) so I can't tell how much work it would require to design such a scenario, but I think that it should be reasonably easy to test because the TOs will all be activated at turn one and than both players have four more turns to deploy their forces, without knowing what choices the other side did make and how he sets up his forces. So there isn't that much that could go wrong with the events, no unexpected Grozny sudden victory trigger or an army that was supposed to deploy not showing up :)
good ideas, but Grozny was never a sudden victory for example in Braunschweig it was my gamble but rules were obeyed, I like the new FitE rules 10 hex limit for paras.
Mario
NEWSFLASH - Zaporozhe, Kiev, and Smolensk all fell in turn 13 in my game of FiTE... Maybe I could write AAR, we'll see.
good ideas, but Grozny was never a sudden victory for example in Braunschweig it was my gamble but rules were obeyed, I like the new FitE rules 10 hex limit for paras.
I was thinking about an old Europe Aflame version, there Grozny was an (unintended) sudden Axis victory hex :D
Bloodstar
11 Oct 04, 13:22
I was thinking about an old Europe Aflame version, there Grozny was an (unintended) sudden Axis victory hex :D
Ah, ok then, my mistake :confused:
Sick with TOAW madness hehe :D
Mario
My personal preference would be mirrored rounds. But not elimination. Everyone plays all rounds. Determine points in some way and whoever has most points is the winner. It's not really much fun getting eliminated in the first round and then you are out. One might not be able to get into another tourney for months. :cry:
This sounds like the best tourney style to me too.
Also, it seems to me there are probably a small handfull here who could be counted on to win all tournaments. Perhaps there should be handicapping based on how many tournaments someone has won in the past. I realize this sounds a bit Socialist but I'm trying to think of a way to give the slovenly stepping stone masses a chance. :hmmm:
Regards,
A Slovenly Stepping Stone.
Sorry stepping stones. You'll have to work at it and become tripping stones. No handicapping.
How about an East Front non-elimination individual tourney? We've done the west and africa. It's time for Russia. Everybody plays 2 or 3 east front scenarios as each side against all different opponents. Most points wins. Simple and not necessary to design new scenarios or even have balanced ones.
Interesting but you'll need several of these if it's an elimination tournament. And apart from tweaking pre-existing scenarios, someone will have to create them, which would basically transform the tourney in a huge playtesting festival. Not that it would be bad (that's what we've been doing with Wintergewitter after all, in a late development stage of the scenario), but you'll run the risk of finding yourself say on turn 10 with a yet-undiscovered critical flaw in the scenario. At this point, you can say goodbye to any form of result from the tourney (and lots of pissed-off / infuriated comments probably ;)).
That's why I would second battle-tested and proven scenarios rather than made-on-purpose ones.
My 0.02 € :D
Hear!, hear!
See my previous post.
Kraut's new scenario idea could get integrated into the upcoming Euro/US tourney. We have scenario of invasion of Europe and USA, we still need a neutral front scenario. Kraut and JL (and/or others) could come up with this based on Kraut's theme. I had an idea that a possibility could be Syria. Context: Syria pisses of Georgie, Bush invades, Euros intervene on Syria side. You've got Americans coming in from the East and Euros from the west. But that's just one off-beat idea.
Kraut's new scenario idea could get integrated into the upcoming Euro/US tourney. We have scenario of invasion of Europe and USA, we still need a neutral front scenario. Kraut and JL (and/or others) could come up with this based on Kraut's theme. I had an idea that a possibility could be Syria. Context: Syria pisses of Georgie, Bush invades, Euros intervene on Syria side. You've got Americans coming in from the East and Euros from the west. But that's just one off-beat idea.
Or Libya and Egypt are at loggerheads. Several border incidents. Libya and France agree to a purchase of LeClercs by Libya. Egypt denys France access to the Suez for this. The EU tries to intervene on France's side to come up with a diplomatic solution. Libyan assasin tries to kill Egyptian leader. Egypt tells EU to go to hell and closes Suez to all EU traffic. EU closes Suez to ALL traffic by seizing the south end. US tries to escort oil tanker through and tanker plus escort are sunk. US sides with Egypt. War ensues. :nuts:
Dicke Bertha
11 Oct 04, 14:25
...How about an East Front non-elimination individual tourney? We've done the west and africa. It's time for Russia. Everybody plays 2 or 3 east front scenarios as each side against all different opponents. Most points wins. Simple and not necessary to design new scenarios or even have balanced ones.
Urah! Maybe an East Front Tourney comprising a XIX-century (or is it XVIII database) one, a WW1 one, a WW2 and a WW3!!!! That would be really cool.
BTW, what is considered a suitable length for a game (in terms of weeks to complete a game)? One month?
Urah! Maybe an East Front Tourney comprising a XIX-century (or is it XVIII database) one, a WW1 one, a WW2 and a WW3!!!! That would be really cool.
BTW, what is considered a suitable length for a game (in terms of weeks to complete a game)? One month?
My preference would be WW2 but as a compromise I would say 3: WWs I, II and III. I would say the shorter/smaller the scenario the better because we're asking people to play 6 games and we want to be done before WW IV is over!
How would we handle drop outs in this one? We would probably have to go for 'rounds' any way so that drop outs wouldn't get new match ups.
CyberRanger
11 Oct 04, 23:24
... I would say the shorter/smaller the scenario the better because we're asking people to play 6 games and we want to be done before WW IV is over!
...From our experience with Wintergewitter (great scenario!), I totally agree ... shorter/smaller is better. In that tourney, some players have been done for months while two battles continue. Not really good for a tourney.
My preference would be WW2 but as a compromise I would say 3: WWs I, II and III. I would say the shorter/smaller the scenario the better because we're asking people to play 6 games and we want to be done before WW IV is over!Sounds good, it would be a good mix of settings and force capacities. If there are to be rounds, it would be difficult to advocate for scenarios longer than 15-20 turns each.
viridomaros
12 Oct 04, 07:17
we want to be done before WW IV is over!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: , though it's an important point to keep in mind you're right
RhinoBones
12 Oct 04, 21:07
I'd like to see a scenario on a pretty balanced map with cease fire and zero recon for the first 5 turns for both players and some TOs to choose your ideal force mix . . . because both players have the same potential starting position but based on their strategical purchases and tactical setup before the cease fire is lifted it could get really wild . . .
The scenario 1937 Revisionist War has many of the characteristics that you mention. 1937 starts with only one of three home city armies deployed (home cities are variable) and zero Theater Reconnaissance. Subsequent allied cities and their armies are brought into play using Theater Options. Additional Theater Reconnaissance and other significant events are controlled using Theater Options.
Both forces have equal chances of receiving Theater Options for the deployment of additional forces. Using Theater Options to bring allies to your side will usually work, however, occasionally the Theater Option fails to work as intended and the city either remains neutral or elects to side with the enemy. Of the 80+ armies/formations programmed into the scenario only 16 to 20 ever enter the map in a typical game. This leaves quite a bit of room for variability. I doubt that a player would ever see the same composition of forces twice.
Since the scenario is played on a huge continental map and the number of turns is open ended, it may not be suitable for tournament play. However, if a specific number of turns was established, and a tournament moderator provided the initial scenario, the scenario should be adaptable as a tournament scenario.
Also, since the physical distance between the forces is greater than a two turn move, there is no need for a cease fire event. The structure of the scenario ensures that a great amount of maneuvering takes places before the sides engage.
Should mention that Victory Points are only used to calculate the loss penalties. There are no Victory Points awarded for capture of specific hexes. The value of specific map locations is determined by the players through their actions to capture, defend or ignore their presence.
A map of the 1937 battleground is attached.
Regards, RhinoBones
I think we could somehow find a U.S./Euro or possibly even a Russian front element to Rhinobone's scenario. It has always looked interresting to give it a try. It does seem to be up Kraut's alley theme-wise. It might even make a whole tourney of it's own. Unless we come up with a third scenario with a definitive U.S./Euro theme, I vote we incorporate this scenario into that tourney.
Should we start nominating scenarios for the Russian Front tourney? Do we have consensus that that is the interim tourney?
06 Maestro
13 Oct 04, 03:12
I play-tested RhonoBones scenario, and I found it challenging and entertaining. It involves long term strategic and operational decisions w/o any help from the commanders of the past as it is a whole new world. The game is a bit long, so an early ending would have to be agreed upon. On the down side; no two games will have the same opposing forces so it is possible that some unlucky player will get burned on the TOs; not likly, but possible.
RhinoBones
13 Oct 04, 07:11
On the down side; no two games will have the same opposing forces so it is possible that some unlucky player will get burned on the TOs; not likly, but possible.
This is a true statement. Even though an equal starting point can be provided to each player, randomization of the TOs guaranties that each match will development independently. Most games will be reasonably balanced but there is always a possibility one side will have a dominating position. A tournament would need to consist of several rounds and a cumulative point system to ensure all players have an honest chance.
Regards, RhinoBones
Panzerpelle
13 Oct 04, 09:37
...Eeeeehh..I have a new version of the NORDIC LIGHT with totally new event list and new OOB ready within a month or two...Its 12 turns long, a hypo invansion of the Nordic countries in the early 90´. Russia vs NATO/NORDIC. It might be a good scenario for a short tourney...You can check out the old version in the scenario depot.
Should we start nominating scenarios for the Russian Front tourney? Do we have consensus that that is the interim tourney?I liked better your previous idea (three games covering WW1, WW2, WW3) but anyway ;) - to keep the ball rolling, I made a quick search through the RD scenario database, looking for WW2 scenarios under 20 turns. Here's what the search yielded concerning the Eastern Front :
Kharkov 42 (only the revised version should be considered)
2nd Battle of Kharkov, May 1942 (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=594)
A desperate measures (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=494)
Kursk 43 (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=353)
Maskirovka PBEM (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=452)
Belgrade Operation 44 (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/display_scenario.php?Id=68)
There are certainly other scenarios out there suitable for an Eastern Front tournament. Players' feedback regarding balance and playability could come in handy at this stage.
Actually Desparate Measure is also Kharkov. If you increase the turn count to 30 you increase the number of scenarios to nine. So, perhaps 30 turns is a better number? :D
What are the additional scenarios Davich? Well if Nordic Light is going to be WWIII (Actually there are many of these scenarios to choose from as well but being in the process of playing the Wintergewitter scenario causes me to be highly agreeable to a PzPelle designed scenario.) we still have WWI and II. I've heard good things about the Kharkov 42 scen. Presumbaly the modified version didn't break it as well as fix it. I'm in the dark on WWI scens myself and would just as soon have a 3rd WWII one or even WWIII. But in the interest of keeping a theme and the fact that part of what tourneys are good for is making you well rounded - what about WWI?
A Nordic Light tourney would be quite interesting :devil:
plutonico
14 Oct 04, 12:38
i prefer wwii scenarie i enjoy a lot with winterwigiter and i dont sure that are many scenaries so funny than this. kharkov 42 is not bad chance.
What are the additional scenarios Davich?
Actually there are several more at 30 turns:
Army Group North
Kiev 41
Korsun 44
Operation Sturgeon 42
Operation Zitadelle (another Kursk)
Panzergruppe Guderian 41
Sevastapol 42
Smolensk 41
Operation Typhoon 41
Wasn't there a Veli Luki (sp) scenario?
Wasn't there a Veli Luki (sp) scenario? I guess it's there (http://www.warfarehq.com/archives/showthread.php?t=219), with scenario notes here (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5019) (with another Velikye Luki scenario attached somewhere down the thread). Six turns only though.
Am I right in assuming clammbot (from the file archives forum) and hellen are the same person? :crosseye:
i prefer wwii scenarie i enjoy a lot with winterwigiter and i dont sure that are many scenaries so funny than this. kharkov 42 is not bad chance.
I prefer WWII myself but as I said in the interest of well-roundedness support the idea of using a RUssian scenario from each of the three wars.
I prefer WWII myself but as I said in the interest of well-roundedness support the idea of using a RUssian scenario from each of the three wars.What about, for instance :
Tannenberg 14
Kharkov 42 (revised)
Nordic Light or The Next War 1979 - Sudden War
My 0.02 € ;)
Tannenberg 14
Kharkov 42 (revised)
Nordic Light or The Next War 1979 - Sudden War
My 0.02 € ;)
seconded! That makes $.04 (aproximately)
RhinoBones
14 Oct 04, 21:08
I guess it's there (http://www.warfarehq.com/archives/showthread.php?t=219), with scenario notes here (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5019) (with another Velikye Luki scenario attached somewhere down the thread). Six turns only though.
Am I right in assuming clammbot (from the file archives forum) and hellen are the same person? :crosseye:
The link is actually to the VL introduction/tutorial scenario To The Rescue. The same author also made a full campaign version named Velikiye Luki. Attached is a screen shot from the initial positions Velikiye Luki HK.jpg. The scenario is designed for 65 turns.
I started my own version of VL but later stopped when I learned that a scenario already existed. Velikiye Luki RB.jpg is my unfinished scenario.
Regards, RhinoBones
CyberRanger
14 Oct 04, 23:12
What about, for instance :
Tannenberg 14
Kharkov 42 (revised)
Nordic Light or The Next War 1979 - Sudden War
My 0.02 € ;)
Nice line up!
Nice line up!
What say you boss? Time to make a tourney page and start taking sign ups? I'm in!
06 Maestro
15 Oct 04, 00:24
I'm interested in an East Front tournament, but it should be confined to one war IMHO. We are using up 3 tournament subjects; WW1, WW2, and one of several possible cold war subjects all in one tounament. My choice for EF WW2 is;
1. Kharkov '42
2. Sevastopol 2.1
3. Trappenjagd 1.0
# 2 and 3 are 30 turns max, but very few units-about one hundred (before breakdown). Both games are by D McBride; set in the Crimea in "42.
I'm interested in an East Front tournament, but it should be confined to one war IMHO. We are using up 3 tournament subjects; WW1, WW2, and one of several possible cold war subjects all in one tounament. My choice for EF WW2 is;
1. Kharkov '42
2. Sevastopol 2.1
3. Trappenjagd 1.0
# 2 and 3 are 30 turns max, but very few units-about one hundred (before breakdown). Both games are by D McBride; set in the Crimea in "42.
Hey I could get behind that too. How about dropping one of the Crimea scenarios in favor of Velikye Luki or Kursk or something?
06 Maestro
15 Oct 04, 00:50
Hey I could get behind that too. How about dropping one of the Crimea scenarios in favor of Velikye Luki or Kursk or something?
I have no problem with that at all, although I haven't seen a complete Velikye Luki scenario yet.
The link is actually to the VL introduction/tutorial scenario To The Rescue. The same author also made a full campaign version named Velikiye Luki. Attached is a screen shot from the initial positions Velikiye Luki HK.jpg. The scenario is designed for 65 turns.
I started my own version of VL but later stopped when I learned that a scenario already existed. Velikiye Luki RB.jpg is my unfinished scenario.
Regards, RhinoBonesMy blunder, thanks for the info.
I'm interested in an East Front tournament, but it should be confined to one war IMHO. We are using up 3 tournament subjects; WW1, WW2, and one of several possible cold war subjects all in one tounament. My choice for EF WW2 is;
1. Kharkov '42
2. Sevastopol 2.1
3. Trappenjagd 1.0
# 2 and 3 are 30 turns max, but very few units-about one hundred (before breakdown). Both games are by D McBride; set in the Crimea in "42.Could work. What about balance for Sevastopol and Trappenjagd? I haven't played them yet and there are very few game reports (here, at the Blitz and at RD) concerning them.
On a side note, where do I find Trappenjagd? It's not referenced on D. McBride's scenario depot at RD nor is it to be found at the Wargamer.
Could work. What about balance for Sevastopol and Trappenjagd? I haven't played them yet and there are very few game reports (here, at the Blitz and at RD) concerning them.
Remember if we are playing the format discussed earlier (all players play each side of each scenario), balance is not that important. My personal preference though would be to not have two scenarios by the same designer in the same general space/time area.
Remember if we are playing the format discussed earlier (all players play each side of each scenario), balance is not that important.Depends on the scenario : for the sake of the argument, would you go through a mirrored Cherbourg 44 in a tournament? I wouldn't... ;)
A lop-sided scenario with a foregone conclusion would be won on points solely. Probably not very appealing.
My personal preference though would be to not have two scenarios by the same designer in the same general space/time area.Good point.
It is my personal opinion that by limiting the games to only 20 turns you eliminate most of the best scenarios on the East Front. Also by limiting the number of games per author you take away most of the better East Front scenarios. Those by Brian Topp. These are my preferences, not limited by turns or author. Go to The Strategist to read up on them.
Battle For Moscow, Brian Topp, 38 turns, 1941
Hube's Pocket, Fabio Mazzucchelli, 32 turns, 1944
Stalingrad to Kharkov, Brian Topp, 34 turns, 1942
06 Maestro
15 Oct 04, 12:42
On a side note, where do I find Trappenjagd? It's not referenced on D. McBride's scenario depot at RD nor is it to be found at the Wargamer.
I got it from McBrides site when you could download from there. If it isn't there anymore, the question arises of why not? I have not played the game halfway though, so I can't attest to its purity. From what I did see, it was a very good scenario, but... :o
CyberRanger
15 Oct 04, 13:04
It is my personal opinion that by limiting the games to only 20 turns you eliminate most of the best scenarios on the East Front. Also by limiting the number of games per author you take away most of the better East Front scenarios. Those by Brian Topp. These are my preferences, not limited by turns or author. Go to The Strategist to read up on them.
Battle For Moscow, Brian Topp, 38 turns, 1941
Hube's Pocket, Fabio Mazzucchelli, 32 turns, 1944
Stalingrad to Kharkov, Brian Topp, 34 turns, 1942
Maybe ONE of those scenarios in the last round. Otherwise the tourney will last 18 months or so! When you plan these things, assume that players will only complete one turn per week. I know that doesn't seem like much but I find it's a realistic number.
06 Maestro
15 Oct 04, 13:08
It is my personal opinion that by limiting the games to only 20 turns you eliminate most of the best scenarios on the East Front. Also by limiting the number of games per author you take away most of the better East Front scenarios. Those by Brian Topp. These are my preferences, not limited by turns or author. Go to The Strategist to read up on them.
Battle For Moscow, Brian Topp, 38 turns, 1941
Hube's Pocket, Fabio Mazzucchelli, 32 turns, 1944
Stalingrad to Kharkov, Brian Topp, 34 turns, 1942
These are good scenarios, but the number of turns is a little high for our demonstrated game turnaround time. I'm afraid that such a lineup would take about 21 months to 2 years to complete.
I agree that by limiting the turns to twenty, we miss out on some very good scenarios. If some more ridged standards were set for game completion, it could be done. Some suggestions;
1. Specified completion date for each game-give about 12 weeks. If someone is knocked out for a few weeks by RL. no problem, so as they can finish on time.
2. No substitute player for a scenario once scenario is started-finish or OV defeat for that round.
It is my personal opinion that by limiting the games to only 20 turns you eliminate most of the best scenarios on the East Front. Also by limiting the number of games per author you take away most of the better East Front scenarios. Those by Brian Topp. These are my preferences, not limited by turns or author. Go to The Strategist to read up on them.
Battle For Moscow, Brian Topp, 38 turns, 1941
Hube's Pocket, Fabio Mazzucchelli, 32 turns, 1944
Stalingrad to Kharkov, Brian Topp, 34 turns, 1942 I think Hube's pocket has a review here (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6198&highlight=heinz57), in the scenario notes section. If we're envisioning a tournament with three scenarios of more than 20 turns each, I second 06 Maestro's thoughts about game completion rules.
06 Maestro
15 Oct 04, 17:23
In view of the former commitment of the US-EU tournament, perhaps we should not start an interim tourny with such large games. I was just looking at the available, and well known scenarios for the Balkans;
1. Balkans 1912
2. Balkans 1913
3. Balkans 1914
or; WW1 EF
1. Tannenburg
2. Brusilovs'
3. EF 1915
Talk about having one designer...
These scenarios range from 11 to 22 turns. With some luck, this tournament will be near completion by the time J.L. gets out of the hospital. And then on with the big one.
Maybe the scenarios to be actually played should be chosen after we've asked ourselves (and hopefully answered ;)) some basic questions, for instance:
Do we agree on the format : three-turn elimination tournament without handicap?
Do we agree on it being focused on a single world war?
WW1?
WW2?
Do we agree the scenarios should depict a single theatre of operations?
the Eastern Front seems to be fashionable among those who have expressed themselves, do we agree on this theatre?
Do we agree on the fact that the tournament must be held within tight time limits?
do we go for short scenarios (thus restricting somewhat the choice)?
or for longer ones while enforcing a strict time completion policy?
RhinoBones
15 Oct 04, 18:09
Suggest that you write to the authors of the longer scenarios and ask them if they would consider making (or letting you make) a tournament version which is under 20 turns. I suspect that the length of quite a few scenarios are based on historical constraints and do not reflect the actual number of turns it requires to determine a victor.
Also, you might consider the scenario Franco-Prussian War 1870 for your tournament. Twelve turns, possible to win from either side and does not require the XIX game engine.
Regards, RhinoBones
06 Maestro
15 Oct 04, 20:29
I like the idea of keeping it on one front in the same era. This little bit of immersion will help players do a better job, and to get a better feel for the situation commanders faced at that time, which is something that I appreciate.
The era chosen does not really matter to me, although to take on something pre WW2 would be nice.
I like the idea of time limits and the 3 rounds for elimination.
If we used the “total points-non elimination” format, perhaps we could have a shorter tourney with one or two lager games. Maybe we need a poll, or a fearless leader could just tell us what we need. I’m starting to sound like a politician. :confused:
Do we agree on the format : three-turn elimination tournament without handicap?
No: NON-elimination. Everybody plays both sides of all 3 scenarios. Highest score wins.
Do we agree on it being focused on a single world war? WW1?
WW2?
Yes WW2
Do we agree the scenarios should depict a single theatre of operations?
the Eastern Front seems to be fashionable among those who have expressed themselves, do we agree on this theatre?
Yes. Russia
Do we agree on the fact that the tournament must be held within tight time limits?
do we go for short scenarios (thus restricting somewhat the choice)?
or for longer ones while enforcing a strict time completion policy?
Probaly not having too long of scenarios is a good idea, but I'm not completely against them in principle, except for the really big ones like Braunschweig or DNO.
I think Hube's pocket has a review here (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6198&highlight=heinz57), in the scenario notes section. If we're envisioning a tournament with three scenarios of more than 20 turns each, I second 06 Maestro's thoughts about game completion rules.
LOL...ouch. :nuts:
Kursk is a lousy scenario, too. We've played that one before, on a tournament at this site a couple of years ago.
Dicke Bertha
16 Oct 04, 04:30
Maybe the scenarios to be actually played should be chosen after we've asked ourselves (and hopefully answered ;)) some basic questions, for instance:
Do we agree on the format : three-turn elimination tournament without handicap?
Do we agree on it being focused on a single world war?
WW1?
WW2?
Do we agree the scenarios should depict a single theatre of operations?
the Eastern Front seems to be fashionable among those who have expressed themselves, do we agree on this theatre?
Do we agree on the fact that the tournament must be held within tight time limits?
do we go for short scenarios (thus restricting somewhat the choice)?
or for longer ones while enforcing a strict time completion policy?
Actually, would two tournaments going on simultaneously be too much for this community? If the US vs Euro won't start for a couple of months (?) yet, awaiting JL, and comprising his scenarios (no very long are they? Never tried them), that US/Euro tornament would be 'rather' quick?
Why not start a rather big East Front tournament, at least three scenarios, no elimination but points, mirrored games, and with slightly longer scenarios? Or at least not having <20 turns as a prerequisite... Those really short ones aren't so interesting in my opinion... I like the monsters, DnO, GiO etc, but they may be unrealistic to tournament.
Ideal scenario length say 30-40 turns? Have no clue as to which scenarios though...
So, from what I gather...
Three rounds, mirrored scenarios, no elimination but points counting towards victory, WW2, Eastern Front.
That leaves the question of scenario length - apparently, restricting the choice to those scenarios under 20 turns is not very appealing, nor is it realistic to include the monster ones (GiO, DnO et al.) with 60+ turns and huge amounts of moves to perform each turn.
30 to 40 turns scenarios look alright and are fine by me, but having them mirrored for each of the three turns is going to put a very heavy load on the players, hence the need, in my opinion, for a strict deadline policy. Signing up for this kind of tournament will have to be a thoroughly well thought decision :D
Maybe we need a poll, or a fearless leader could just tell us what we need.Mantis, where art thou? Why, then 'tis time to arm and give direction. ;)
Bdr.Mallette
16 Oct 04, 10:08
I don't like being the soviet side, will there be a way to guarantee that I don't have to play as them?
CyberRanger
16 Oct 04, 10:15
I don't like being the soviet side, will there be a way to guarantee that I don't have to play as them?
No, you will have to play both sides as the tourney is being tossed around now.
CyberRanger
16 Oct 04, 10:16
..Ideal scenario length say 30-40 turns? ...TOO long for this kind of tourney! Believe me, trust me!
CyberRanger
16 Oct 04, 10:21
So, from what I gather...
Three rounds, mirrored scenarios, no elimination but points counting towards victory... mirrored for each of the three turns is going to put a very heavy load on the players, hence the need, in my opinion, for a strict deadline policy. Signing up for this kind of tournament will have to be a thoroughly well thought decision ... Okay, put your thinking caps on! Here is the problem we run into. Say that the deadline goes past and we determine the player who is at fault. Earlier in this thread, we've said to give the winner an OV. The problem is we are scoring on points! So, we need to determine BEFORE the round starts how many points a player receives for a forfeit OV. We had the strange situation in the War in the West tourney where because an OV forfeit a player got FEWER points than he may have earned if his opponent had finished the game. That's okay as long as we determine the OV points up-front.
Dicke Bertha
16 Oct 04, 12:42
TOO long for this kind of tourney! Believe me, trust me!
:laugh: OK Westpointer, I do, I do! So it's <20 turn scenarios.
Regarding forfeits; give the maximum or an average of what other players on that particular side and scenario scored, factored by played/total turn quotient. (Provided they didn't all lose - in which case it would have to be the average of what the other side scored...) It won't ever be 100% fair, what if people drop out, after having played some games, but not all?
:laugh: OK Westpointer, I do, I do! So it's <20 turn scenarios.
Regarding forfeits; give the maximum or an average of what other players on that particular side and scenario scored, factored by played/total turn quotient. (Provided they didn't all lose - in which case it would have to be the average of what the other side scored...) It won't ever be 100% fair, what if people drop out, after having played some games, but not all?
I don't think we necessarily need less than 20 turn scenarios per se, just ones that aren't so big that they can't be done reasonably quickly. Ideal size would take a couple of hours a turn max so that everybody can get them done in one sitting.
As regards forfeits: I don't think it's a problem if people drop out between rounds (they would automatically lose the tourney of course) as long as they don't drop out of games. If we make the forfeiture penalty too high, at some of the forfeiture rates I've seen, we could have someone win almost enitirely on forfeits. So it's really important to minimize the forfeiture rate. Here's one idea:
Give players the option of requesting a new opponent if the game is starting out too slow. This would require a lot of judging and attention but then the slow, never going to finish guys will end up playing each other and eventually forfeiting out while the rest of us finish the tourney. If you know you are going to have a time you can't play you have to pre arrange it and it wonl't be held against you.
Another advantage of the non-elimination format is that the 'rounds' don't necessarily have to be segregated. Quick players could just keep right on going as they finish their games. Hey! We could even have a reward for finishing first, and possibly even just judge games that are running too late, like by awarding the point level held at the time, or if only one player was the problem 'forfeit' him.
Dicke Bertha
16 Oct 04, 14:28
I don't like being the soviet side, will there be a way to guarantee that I don't have to play as them?
:laugh: I know what you mean, any scenario where I cannot command at least one SS Panzer Korps is really below my dignity! :p
Look at it from the bright side; if you don't like commanding russki troops, just send them ahead in endless charges! ;) They are very used to that! (Now what was it Foggy called it, useless attacks with pointless losses, or was it...) :cheeky:
Foggy's Red Army Tactics (http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=55022&postcount=30)
Bdr.Mallette
16 Oct 04, 17:47
It's just that they don't seem to have any 'punch' to their units. Whereas a german unit seems to find a way to get the job done given proper instruction. No big deal, just no real love of being the soviets. It will not stop me trying to win of course.
06 Maestro
16 Oct 04, 20:25
Quick players could just keep right on going as they finish their games. Hey! We could even have a reward for finishing first, and possibly even just judge games that are running too late, like by awarding the point level held at the time, or if only one player was the problem 'forfeit' him.
Whoa, lets look at that. Reward and punishment have a long history of success; why not continue that fine tradition here? Better here than nowhere.
...Eeeeehh..I have a new version of the NORDIC LIGHT with totally new event list and new OOB ready within a month or two...Its 12 turns long, a hypo invansion of the Nordic countries in the early 90´. Russia vs NATO/NORDIC. It might be a good scenario for a short tourney...You can check out the old version in the scenario depot.
I would strongly recommend this scenario for tournament purposes for the following reasons:
1. It is designed by Panzerpelle who in the past has starred as the designer of Wintergewitter 1942.
2. It is reasonably short (13 turns).
3. It starts out with a ceasefire, and have several TOs allowing players to shape their own strategy.
4. It is time we played a modern scenario
5. And last the danish armys costars as the heroes of light. :D
Panzerpelle
18 Oct 04, 02:47
5. And last the danish armys costars as the heroes of light. :D
LOL...and you kicking my B*** all the time... :surprise:
Hey! We could even have a reward for finishing first, and possibly even just judge games that are running too late, like by awarding the point level held at the time, or if only one player was the problem 'forfeit' him.While the idea of having a bonus for fast players doesn't appeal much to me (we don't want a race contest here or do we ;)), ending games on due date and counting points held at the time for stragglers makes sense and would simplify the management of the tourney.
What's the view of our officials on this?
I second Nordic Light :D You can play carefully or balls to the wall :p
viridomaros
18 Oct 04, 17:20
i would be pleased with nordic light city, i need to train for modern combat. :nuts:
i would be pleased with nordic light city, i need to train for modern combat. :nuts:<--! begin thread hijack -->Ahem... speaking of modern combat... where's my turn 5 Pierre? :D <--! end thread hijack -->
Bdr.Mallette
18 Oct 04, 17:38
And how about my turn 36 or 37 for North Africa Pierre???
lol.
Germans are waiting in El Alamein for any counter-attack.
:D
Looks like we have two tendencies at work here - those favouring a three round non elimination tournament with Eastern Front scenarios, those wishing to play Nordic Light. Foggy, Rasmus, Viridomaros: what other scenarios would you have alongside Nordic Light if the three round format is to be eventually chosen? Off the top of my head I remember seeing an Operation Garbo (in Jutland?) roughly in the same waters and The Next War 1979 but I lack familiarity with these time settings and theatre.
Maybe we could end up with posting a poll with two options available : Eastern Front, Modern Warsaw Pact each complete with three scenarios and bring the matter to popular vote (this whole thread will end in the politics forum :D)
Maybe we could end up with posting a poll with two options available : Eastern Front, Modern Warsaw Pact each complete with three scenarios and bring the matter to popular vote (this whole thread will end in the politics forum :D)
Or the third option of Eastern front but one from each era: WWI II and III. Now that the Nordic Light advocates are bouncing back I would favor this option.
Nordic light could be considered an east front scenario as Finland is a major theater. I would like the three era approach.
PreWWII
WWII
Post WWII
So, what about something like :
Tannenberg 14 (or any other good scenario for this era and theatre manageable enough)
Kharkov 42 Revised (idem)
Nordic Light
Catching up on alot of posts since my absence, so forgive me if I rehash anything. The elimination style tourney is actually one of the better formats for getting different people to the winner's circle. Certainly, fortune still favors the skilled, but there is a much higher probability that the cream of the crop will get eliminated based on random chance (with the pairings).
As an example, if HEAT, Jam and myself were all playing our two games against each other, and someone that's still a tad green drew two noobs, they'd likely pass the round with a higher score than any of the three of us.
My personal preference would be mirrored rounds. But not elimination. Everyone plays all rounds. Determine points in some way and whoever has most points is the winner. It's not really much fun getting eliminated in the first round and then you are out. One might not be able to get into another tourney for months. :cry:
Also, it seems to me there are probably a small handfull here who could be counted on to win all tournaments. Perhaps there should be handicapping based on how many tournaments someone has won in the past. I realize this sounds a bit Socialist but I'm trying to think of a way to give the slovenly stepping stone masses a chance. :hmmm:
Regards,
A Slovenly Stepping Stone.
I'd like to see a scenario on a pretty balanced map with cease fire and zero recon for the first 5 turns for both players and some TOs to choose your ideal force mix
I'd like to see something like this too, Stefan. If we have some designers willing to put in the time, we could certainly go this route.
Interesting but you'll need several of these if it's an elimination tournament. And apart from tweaking pre-existing scenarios, someone will have to create them, which would basically transform the tourney in a huge playtesting festival. Not that it would be bad (that's what we've been doing with Wintergewitter after all, in a late development stage of the scenario), but you'll run the risk of finding yourself say on turn 10 with a yet-undiscovered critical flaw in the scenario. At this point, you can say goodbye to any form of result from the tourney (and lots of pissed-off / infuriated comments probably ;)).
That's why I would second battle-tested and proven scenarios rather than made-on-purpose ones.
My 0.02 € :D
The playtesting isn't as big a deal (timewise) as might be suspected. All of the scenarios were playtested prior to WitW, including several that weren't used. (Keep in mind that the playtesters were vollunteers of varying skill). We've been attempting to playtest all tourney scenarios now, based on issues that arose in the OPFOR tourney, where custom-designed scenarios were created specifically for the individual rounds.
How about an East Front non-elimination individual tourney? We've done the west and africa. It's time for Russia. Everybody plays 2 or 3 east front scenarios as each side against all different opponents. Most points wins. Simple and not necessary to design new scenarios or even have balanced ones.
That would work quite nicely, Bill. EF was something I actually had in mind for this tourney when we decided to go with the west in the last one.
I play-tested RhonoBones scenario, and I found it challenging and entertaining. It involves long term strategic and operational decisions w/o any help from the commanders of the past as it is a whole new world. The game is a bit long, so an early ending would have to be agreed upon. On the down side; no two games will have the same opposing forces so it is possible that some unlucky player will get burned on the TOs; not likly, but possible.
I played through several turns of it as well (in a playtest with Rhino), and the degree of strategic flexibility is impressive. As an example, we both had forces maneuvering around the map that wouldn't reach their objectives for many turns. So some of the battles in far flung locations were fought for many turns with just a unit or two. Very exciting!
Maybe ONE of those scenarios in the last round. Otherwise the tourney will last 18 months or so! When you plan these things, assume that players will only complete one turn per week. I know that doesn't seem like much but I find it's a realistic number.
Too true. And sometimes still overly optimistic.
So, from what I gather...
Three rounds, mirrored scenarios, no elimination but points counting towards victory, WW2, Eastern Front.
Mantis, where art thou? Why, then 'tis time to arm and give direction. ;)
My computer was recovering from months of being under my Mom's hands (I had about 50 search bars installed, and severl million spyware progs eating all my bandwidth), and the reset was made extremely difficult due to MS, SP2, and their damned intelligent updater software.
Running flawlessly now.
I still have a page to go in this thread to catch up, but here's what I've got a feel for at the moment:
Points based tourney, everyone plays all three rounds.
WWII, East Front action.
The shortest scenarios possible should be used, but we should not be adverse to using something a little larger to keep the tourney interesting. It might be nice to have one or two smaller scenarios, and one somewhat larger one. It would all balance out in the end.
Time guidelines will be strictly enforced!
Not mirrored in the typical fashion - you play 2 games, one as each side, but against different opponents, ala War in the West. No noob will play Jam twice in the first round, and leave the community forever... :D
My computer was recovering from months of being under my Mom's handsNever, never let that happen :D
Okay, put your thinking caps on! Here is the problem we run into. Say that the deadline goes past and we determine the player who is at fault. Earlier in this thread, we've said to give the winner an OV. The problem is we are scoring on points! So, we need to determine BEFORE the round starts how many points a player receives for a forfeit OV. We had the strange situation in the War in the West tourney where because an OV forfeit a player got FEWER points than he may have earned if his opponent had finished the game. That's okay as long as we determine the OV points up-front.
I'm still inclined to follow that model. What we did was wait to award points for an OV. Say player A (the Axis) has an AWOL Soviet opponent. He gets an auto-OV. But we wait until all the games are completed, and average out the points earned among all Axis players that achieved an OV through standard play. That total is awarded to all forfeit AXIS OVs.
I like this idea the best, because although it can still be somewhat arbitrary, the fault lies with your own team! If you want the big points with OVs, only the other players on your side can, through their efforts, earn these point levels. There is no judgement calls made by any staff member or player, it's simply based on the numbers. What can be more fair than that?
While the idea of having a bonus for fast players doesn't appeal much to me (we don't want a race contest here or do we ;)), ending games on due date and counting points held at the time for stragglers makes sense and would simplify the management of the tourney.
What's the view of our officials on this?
What if (as an example), player A (Axis) and player B (Reds) were doing a Barbarossa style scenario? And player A is a slowpoke and they never get past the first 1/3rd of the game. Well, that wold give the Axis a huge, unrealisitc score. The Russian player, who was prompt, never got to see what the score could look like after he starts getting his reinforcements cranking out like only the Reds can do.
Would be like judging Europe Aflame on points just after that fall of France. The Allies could even be 'winning', but you'd never know by the numbers.
Looks like we have two tendencies at work here - those favouring a three round non elimination tournament with Eastern Front scenarios, those wishing to play Nordic Light. Foggy, Rasmus, Viridomaros: what other scenarios would you have alongside Nordic Light if the three round format is to be eventually chosen? Off the top of my head I remember seeing an Operation Garbo (in Jutland?) roughly in the same waters and The Next War 1979 but I lack familiarity with these time settings and theatre.
Maybe we could end up with posting a poll with two options available : Eastern Front, Modern Warsaw Pact each complete with three scenarios and bring the matter to popular vote (this whole thread will end in the politics forum :D)
Unless you guys feel quite strongly about it, I'd prefer to stick to a WWII theme just to get us all on the right track. It might take some weeks yet before we could get this baby going if we have to do playtesting, etc; considering we don't even have a consensus on the tourney era yet, never mind the scenarios themselves.
I'd like to run a modern war tourney in the near future, and Pelle's scenario would fir right in to that niche.
Never, never let that happen :D
Never again, to be sure!
Ok, I made my last 'let's go WWII' post before reading a bunch of comments flip-flopping on the modern war angle. Gents, how about this. We'll give it a day or two to reach a reasonable consensus; if we *can't* come to one, we'll go WWII, with modern as a potential theme for the next tourney.
The shortest scenarios possible should be used, but we should not be adverse to using something a little larger to keep the tourney interesting. It might be nice to have one or two smaller scenarios, and one somewhat larger one. It would all balance out in the end.Sounds like a good compromise.
viridomaros
19 Oct 04, 07:29
well any era is good to me :nuts:
if we have to play during ww2 here are some scenario i have in mind
- kharkov 1942
- the classical 2innorm ( we already played that one but it is such a good one)
- poland 1939 by ben turner, map is quite big and there are many units but only 8 turns
- bastogne 1944: map is small but 18 turns or so.
- smolensk from the cd: map is small but 25 turns.
CyberRanger
19 Oct 04, 08:14
Wow! I posted the poll then realized I'd missed a page and a half of posts! But ... I think the poll is consistent with the thoughts here. :nuts:
Yup, it fits the bill quite nicely. We're on the same page (by accident!) :laugh:
We'll see how it goes, and begin a signup soon.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.