Any interest?

[rahamy]

Personally I like scenarios played out on Big maps with plenty of room to maneuver...so that your fate is in your own hands and you don't have to conform to any decisions the scenario designer made for you.

With that in mind, would there be a few of you interested in participating in a tourney using such scenarios? We could discuss the limits in forces, turns etc. - and by nature it would be a long term commitment. We could even do it with each round being from a different game using the three titles with really big maps - Eckmuhl, Waterloo & Jena.

If we had 6 participants it would be doable...or any even number above that. Post here if it even remotely interests you...or feel free to tell me I'm a lunatic...what ever. :clown:

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I think it would be doable but you would have to have some turn/time commitment outside of the usual vacations, illnesses, etc.

[Lord_Valentai]

What about if you allocated forces within a side to various players? Say 1 corps for the French or something like that?

[rahamy]

Sure, a Multi-Player game. Have done many of those, but I've found they are even harder to keep going than big battles between two players. You then have 4 or more guys wrapped up in a single conflict and any one of them can derail the process.

When an MP game works right though it is a good bit of fun. :cool:

[brickie]

I'am interested in participating in such a tourney. It will indeed a very long commitment for the next couple of years. Just the amount of time to see my just born son grow up into his teens:-))

I never played a Napoleonic MP game. But from experience with Panzer campaigns they can be very entertaining. So mayby with the right people........

Brickie

[FM WarB]

About Big scenarios:
von Ege and I played through the morning of the 18th in my four days in june scenario, with him giving up as French. Took us about six months, but we were dedicated.
Cranked it up again with me as french, and suspended play midday 16 June, after a coupla months.
Such dedication is hard to sustain. I think I prefer one day scenarios (That is what the game system is best at, IMO.) I'm also digging into EAW. I also much prefer my oob/pdt style to those in standard games.

[Tom Bridges]

Hey Rich...Great idea! Brickie and I would be interested in teaming up for a big scenario, MP game. Either tournament format or just a big MP game would be fun. :yummy:

Waterloo? Or...?

Tom

[Sgt_Rock]

My experience is that the large scenarios usually dont complete the total amount of turns thus one game would end at say turn 180 while another might go to turn 300. Thus you would have a huge lag in time between games. By that time interest seems to lag.

Here is my take:

1. Look at the Alternate Jena Campaign I put out - the first scenario was really scaled down in length. That is your target length. No more than 150 turns or so. If you need a 15 min. version of any of my scenarios let me know. I can help.

2. Consider that Hunt for Davout may be the most popular scenario played in any of the games. Its got a decent sized map but probably could use a bit more size to accomodate that many forces. Thus you could create sub maps for this tourny to give the players a new look at the battlefield. Portions of Eckmuhl are rarely used (in the southwest).

3. Another thought: we always seem to know where the other guy is: I would make sure that these scenarios are new and that neither side has the inside track on where the other is in total. Reinforcements also could be duplicated (using a text editor) with three groups listed for Davout but two of them having a zero percentage of arriving. Result: the player knows he has Davout coming on but not WHERE. Gives the player some uncertainty as to where and when his forces will arrive. Again, for the text editor only to avoid those annoying Duplicate messages in the editor.

Give this to both sides and you have a battle that adds in alot of uncertainty.

Limit the VP objectives and you have a game of hunt and seek.

The large Jena map is great for large scenarios but probably wont work for the length I was speaking of earlier. Troops may never arrive at the battlefield or both sides might totally miss each other on such a large map.

I could play in such a tournament provided something like the above is attainted. Not if there will be over 200 turns.

[rahamy]

Lag between games being completed is an issue regardless of size...heck, we have people waiting 2+ months in the current tourneys for others to complete a 16 turn scenario! So that would just be an understanding going in to it - not everyone will finish at the same time. But the point is taken, 300 turns won't be used.

And I agree, these would need to be "blind" scenarios as much as possible, so there's no pre-knowledge for the players.


So...it seems there's a "little" interest in this at least. I count 3 - potentially 5 players so far...let's see who else swings in and once we get a solid 6 we can talk more details.

And if need be, I'd be willing to be an "umpire" and do the scenario design so everything would be completely blind for the participants.

[Iley]

Did this idea ever go anywhere. If it picks up I would be happy to participate. I'm still new at this but those who I have played will testify I do get the moves out. Long scenarios with large maps lend themselves to creative strategy. You must play the game as there is a tomorrow unlike many battle games were it's all or nothing in a short timeframe.

Iley

[rahamy]

There hasn't been much "unified" support, so I let this drop. My concept was big scenarios in a 1:1 environment...team (MP) games came up, but those really are much harder to keep going...and given only initial responses were made and no push to make it happen leads me to think they would have a hard time staying together.

So, probably the best thing to do is just post a challenge in the "Opponents Wanted" sub-forum at the top here and get a game going that interests you.