Idea: Tournament with pre-selected army

[ray243]

I was wondering, if more care can be taken up by the host of a tournament, and create a game where army on both sides is selected to the host liking.

If possible, the map can be created due to the host liking.


And another thing I felt might be fun is, to allow teams to command the parts of the same army.

What do I mean? I was hoping that we could follow time commanders style of gameplay, by allowing three players to command flank, cavlary and main infrantry line respectively.


Also, there is a central commander or leader of each team, who is charged with managing the overall aspect of the game.


So this way, we can play a more historical version of the game, with a map created by the host, and a more accurate army created by the host as well.


Also, the teams will really be forced to react as a team, not just people commanding two different army allied together. If the cavlary or flank commander refuse to cooperate, the team will lose the round.


This way, we can have a clear division of command, and the team will be forced to adapt to what they have. Also, this overall team leader will not be stuck down micromanging his army.

Besides that, we are solving the downside of a unit limit. We can go beyond the 20 unit limits with this set up, and with good teamwork, we can have two massive army on both sides, instead of four different armies fighting on their own.


Also, if the host decides to create a map on his own, what we can have is a game where the landscape can be more historical, and we can have historical battle set up on our own.



In essence, we can emulate the game show, Time Commanders to its maximum extend possible.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

It's a good idea, but I don't see how all three of those players would be able to work with the same army, especially at the start of the game. Cos if you have three players, then when they started, they will all be in different parts of the battlefield, due to RTW making everyone start in an area of their own. This makings deploying a useful formation much harder, as you have to move units into place after the battle has started, and be vulnerable to enemy attacks while you are moving.

Plus, if we did this, we'd need a reliable communication link between the 3 players. Though Xfire works reasonably well, I have had faults with it, and some people don't have Xfire anyway. And typing messages out will be far too slow in a scenario like that.

So basically, the idea is definitely good, but there's still a lot to consider before we can put it into action.

[emotion_name]

I think Xavier covered that one pretty much.


I like the sound of this, in theory it sounds good. I used to love watching Time Commanders, and all i would shout at the T.V is "do this" or "dont do that", before thinking "get rid of that useless chain of command and let me control every unit", hence i went out and bought RTW.

[ray243]

It's a good idea, but I don't see how all three of those players would be able to work with the same army, especially at the start of the game. Cos if you have three players, then when they started, they will all be in different parts of the battlefield, due to RTW making everyone start in an area of their own. This makings deploying a useful formation much harder, as you have to move units into place after the battle has started, and be vulnerable to enemy attacks while you are moving.

Plus, if we did this, we'd need a reliable communication link between the 3 players. Though Xfire works reasonably well, I have had faults with it, and some people don't have Xfire anyway. And typing messages out will be far too slow in a scenario like that.

So basically, the idea is definitely good, but there's still a lot to consider before we can put it into action.

Which is why skirmish is so important. Almost every battle has a skirmish and allow the rest of the army to redeploy.


In essence, this is a team focused tournament, and I do think it will be interesting in a total war game.


Moreover, we could add in a commentary in the game...and upload videos on youtube.


And a new map means people would have to adapt a a new enviroment, and can't memorise the exact location on the battlefield, and have to scout the location.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Which is why skirmish is so important. Almost every battle has a skirmish and allow the rest of the army to redeploy.

The problem with this, is that probably one person on each side will have to make the skirmish, and the time it'll take to get the other two into position will probably have worn down the troops involved in the skirmish down to a minimum. Therefore, that third person will be sitting there with hardly anything to do for the rest of the battle.

And also, like Selifator's pointed out, coordination is very hard to maintain.

[GeneralChaos]

It's a good idea, but I don't know how well the chain of command would actually work out. I'd think it would end up similar to a 3v3 match, though, because communicating in middle of a match is a pain and anyone entering such a tournament would probably know what to do and need minimal instruction.

But, you know, it's always worth a shot. Worst case scenario, 6 people still got a decent quality RTW match.

[Selifator]

Have you seen the Darkest Days tournament? Or the Old Republic tournament? In Darkest Days, Cluny and I have playtested each battle and made plans and strategies, we use xfire to speak to each other, but this only works because we live relatively near each other.
In the Old Republic tournament, in some of the battles, I used all of the cavalry and archers, while Cluny commanded the infantry. The problem with this is that even if you coördinate well, you won't be able to immediatly react to threats.
So the idea is good, but more than three players doesn't work. This because of the amount of coördination, the problem with support not being where you need it, and the biggest problem is that with two peope we talked through each other, three people will do so more.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

How about you use 2 players instead of 3?

You can divide the responsibility in different ways:
1) One player commands the Left Flank & Centre-Left. The other player commands the Centre-Right and the Right Flank. That would be like Alexander the Great & Parmenio leading the Macedonians in their early battles. Or...

2) One player commands all of the foot-elements. The other player commands all of the mounted-elements.

Those are just some ideas.

[ray243]

Lovely idea I think...although I was thinking of letting two players in charge of micromanaging, while the 3rd player commanding a single general unit, will be managing the team as a whole.


Although, the most important thing I am trying to achieve first, is a tournament with a pre-selected army for both sides.

[emotion_name]

Lovely idea I think...although I was thinking of letting two players in charge of micromanaging, while the 3rd player commanding a single general unit, will be managing the team as a whole.


Although, the most important thing I am trying to achieve first, is a tournament with a pre-selected army for both sides.

Well if ya need any help with that aspect, just ask!

Im turning into quite a little whizz with the Battle Editor now!

[Prince_of_Macedon]

Lovely idea I think...although I was thinking of letting two players in charge of micromanaging, while the 3rd player commanding a single general unit, will be managing the team as a whole.

The only drawback to that is that the two micromanagers will probably end up ignoring everything the commander is saying once the action starts.

[ray243]

Hmm, it will be fun to have a tournament where people is forced to adapt to a new enviroment quickly with a new map and a new army.

We can even play a battle of tuterborg(spelling?) forest.

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Teutoberg

[ray243]

Which can make the battle interesting, if you are watching if of course.


Also, we need to emphais on teamwork, from what I have seen, quite a few people is willingly to work together, and also, it may spark off an interest in forming a clan.

[ray243]

Guys, you might want to take a look at a well-orgainsed historical battle with 3 people on each side, each with a proper chain of command.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=153413

This battle is a prime example!

[king-nord]

Good idea.You just need to think about communication.

Also pre selected armies <3

[_TubbZ_]

I think if you do this to some extent historical accuracy would have to be ignored to provide a balanced battle to pose a real challenge...

and for communication theres Teamspeak, Vent or Xfire.

[ray243]

Some historical accuracy can be ignored, but the overall composition of troops shall remain. For example, it will be interesting to see Prince of Macedon fighting as the macedon against the a skilled plater commanding Persians in the battle of Gaugamela.


It will be a real test of skills to some people, and discourage micro-managament for the macro-manager.

[Selifator]

I know we've played the Gaugamela battle in a tournament. And I believe both sides have won, so that's not really a challenge. Also, a test of skills is usually with equal armies, so that the better skills may come forth and smash the opponent.
And micro-managing is a necessary skill online.

[ray243]

I know we've played the Gaugamela battle in a tournament. And I believe both sides have won, so that's not really a challenge. Also, a test of skills is usually with equal armies, so that the better skills may come forth and smash the opponent.
And micro-managing is a necessary skill online.

From what I understand, the odds are greater against alexander in the real battle, as compared to the battle in RTW ALX. Imagine 60 units going against 20 units! By the way, yes, micro-management is needed, but I hope that players do not win by micro-management alone. Too many games has resulted in a micro-management game. In real life, Generals do not micro-manage to such a huge extend. And there is a reason why I suggest people to work in teams and be effective as a team, as compared to thinking yourself as Alexander reborn just because you are good at micro-managing. Which is why I ask for one macro-manager and one micro-manager, like what the people at the IB mod is doing.