Hi,
maybe someone earlier came up with a similar idea but I found no references, so here it is. What do you think about a multigaming tourney which:
- would be played on a risk-like strategic map between two sides
- there would be a few 'fronts' each corresponding to a game. Like Combat Mission front, Tacops front, Armed Assault front.
- the battles in each front would be fought independently, but the outcome would influence the campaign. E.g. if the flight sim front achieves a major victory in one side, then the other side would face (more) air support in the subsequent combat mission games.
- game masters (1-2) would coordinate the whole thing. The individual missions in each front could be edited manually or generated (if needed) based on the new balance settings. The battles would be strongly interconnected.
- the contributions of each battle to the war would be driven by abstract rules on the strategic map. Logistic point, manufacture points, air superiority points etc. You got the idea. But the real fun is the human element, the storytellers who would invent new missions based on the rules and the results, and put their additions in it.
- you could track the events on a nice frontpage of the war, like what the wwiionline game offers.
I got this idea because I realised there won't be any supercomplex single wargame+simulator in the next 20 years where you can do something like this. It can't be, because the time scales are different in an FPS than in a flight simulator or a submarine simulator, not to mention other genres.
I can fly missions in the Lock On flight sim, but that is just a sole mission. I think the feeling that a successful bombing mission will ease the life of many mates fighting down there would add a lot to the overall experience.
Smaller wargames which can't have a userbase enough to host tourneys could participate this way in "something big". All you need is 2 player and maybe someone who builds missions. The whole tourney wouldn't need many players, though the more the better.
I like to play wargames and realtime simulators too, and for some reason I'd like to put those in the same context. I told this idea to one of my buddies but he didn't liked it. For him just one-game tournaments are OK, he wouldn't like a 'patched' system where other games influence his game in various strange ways. What's your opinion?
maybe someone earlier came up with a similar idea but I found no references, so here it is. What do you think about a multigaming tourney which:
- would be played on a risk-like strategic map between two sides
- there would be a few 'fronts' each corresponding to a game. Like Combat Mission front, Tacops front, Armed Assault front.
- the battles in each front would be fought independently, but the outcome would influence the campaign. E.g. if the flight sim front achieves a major victory in one side, then the other side would face (more) air support in the subsequent combat mission games.
- game masters (1-2) would coordinate the whole thing. The individual missions in each front could be edited manually or generated (if needed) based on the new balance settings. The battles would be strongly interconnected.
- the contributions of each battle to the war would be driven by abstract rules on the strategic map. Logistic point, manufacture points, air superiority points etc. You got the idea. But the real fun is the human element, the storytellers who would invent new missions based on the rules and the results, and put their additions in it.
- you could track the events on a nice frontpage of the war, like what the wwiionline game offers.
I got this idea because I realised there won't be any supercomplex single wargame+simulator in the next 20 years where you can do something like this. It can't be, because the time scales are different in an FPS than in a flight simulator or a submarine simulator, not to mention other genres.
I can fly missions in the Lock On flight sim, but that is just a sole mission. I think the feeling that a successful bombing mission will ease the life of many mates fighting down there would add a lot to the overall experience.
Smaller wargames which can't have a userbase enough to host tourneys could participate this way in "something big". All you need is 2 player and maybe someone who builds missions. The whole tourney wouldn't need many players, though the more the better.
I like to play wargames and realtime simulators too, and for some reason I'd like to put those in the same context. I told this idea to one of my buddies but he didn't liked it. For him just one-game tournaments are OK, he wouldn't like a 'patched' system where other games influence his game in various strange ways. What's your opinion?