More Missions

Discuss and exchange ideas on running tournaments.
User avatar
BR_Joe Lewis
Site Admin
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:17 pm

Re: More Missions

Post by BR_Joe Lewis » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:58 am

ultracommander wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:07 am
Looking at the matrix, you can split it up into a choice between 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 for each round then there are only a couple of places where you could repeat missions during a 3 round tournament.

I think that is what I will do at my next event (on 2/24). For the first round, randomly determine between 1 and 2, second round between 3 and 4 then third round 5 and 6.

You could reduce the chance of repeats by not allowing 4 and 5 to both be selected.

I like it!! Gives players a little control over what type of missions they play while limiting repeats.
FYI - most of the 5-6 are FFA or Rear Guard.

ultracommander
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:51 pm

Re: More Missions

Post by ultracommander » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:43 am

At the tournament I ran at the weekend I tried out the change we discussed here where one die was rolled for each round to determine the mission.

At the end of the day, out of 18 players, only 3 had played the same mission twice and nobody played the same one 3 times. The response from the players was very positive. They all agreed that we should do it this way from now on.

There were some challenges with the logistics of it though. I wanted players to choose their stance before they knew the number so that they couldn't target a particular mission, so I announced the pairings and told the players to discuss terrain, armies and choose their stance and then I would announce the number. The problem with this is that some players were way faster at this than others. Some were ready after a couple of minutes while some were still in discussions after 10 mins.

What I ended up doing was rolling the die and walking round the tables telling those that were ready so that they were not being held up by the slower players.

This worked out ok, but for a larger tournament, or if the TO is playing then there might be some issues with this approach.

On another note, the tournament was 1780 points LW and we were running 2.5 hour rounds. There were only 3 or 4 timeouts all day. All other games came to a proper conclusion before time was called. This was surprising to me as I thought that going with more than 1500 points would result in a lot of slow games.
Keith Gilmour
Minneapolis MN

User avatar
BR_Joe Lewis
Site Admin
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:17 pm

Re: More Missions

Post by BR_Joe Lewis » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:41 pm

Good info.

Thanks,
Joe

User avatar
USChris
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:41 am

Re: More Missions

Post by USChris » Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:54 pm

ultracommander wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:43 am
At the tournament I ran at the weekend I tried out the change we discussed here where one die was rolled for each round to determine the mission.

At the end of the day, out of 18 players, only 3 had played the same mission twice and nobody played the same one 3 times. The response from the players was very positive. They all agreed that we should do it this way from now on.

There were some challenges with the logistics of it though. I wanted players to choose their stance before they knew the number so that they couldn't target a particular mission, so I announced the pairings and told the players to discuss terrain, armies and choose their stance and then I would announce the number. The problem with this is that some players were way faster at this than others. Some were ready after a couple of minutes while some were still in discussions after 10 mins.

What I ended up doing was rolling the die and walking round the tables telling those that were ready so that they were not being held up by the slower players.

This worked out ok, but for a larger tournament, or if the TO is playing then there might be some issues with this approach.

On another note, the tournament was 1780 points LW and we were running 2.5 hour rounds. There were only 3 or 4 timeouts all day. All other games came to a proper conclusion before time was called. This was surprising to me as I thought that going with more than 1500 points would result in a lot of slow games.
Sounds good. We are running a Tournament to wrap up our Escalation League at the end of March and I am going to try this method as well.
Chris Fretts
Able Kompanie
Indianapolis, IN

User avatar
NDNG_Iron_Tom
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:58 am

Re: More Missions

Post by NDNG_Iron_Tom » Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:03 pm

I think this method would have been more fair for my opponents at Adepticon vice what was used.

The Adepticon Attacker/Defender determination method meant that I was always the attacker because I had such a Tank Heavy force (Crusader swarm). Through luck of draw I faced Panzer KOs in three of the four rounds. Auto-making me the attacker was a huge advantage. Having to face an attacking "swarm" in Counterattack, Contact, and Breakthrough was tuff for those opponents with small Panzer companies.

I feel that looking at my force, most opponents would have rather have taken their chances using the More Mission Matrix picking Attack to counter my obvious choice, Attack. In the Attack/Attack grid on the matrix it would have been a roll-off for attacker rather than me essentially "auto-attacking."
Staff member at http://NoDiceNoGlory.com

Banure
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:05 pm

Re: More Missions

Post by Banure » Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 pm

Have any of you considered making players assign attack/maneuver/defend to their army list before the tournament starts? For example, if you plan a list that you want to run agressivly you’d give it an Attack rating, if your list is better souted to defend, assign it defend, etc. This rating would then stick with the list throughout the tournament. It would be a bit similar to the always attacks/defends rating of yore, but then combined with the matrix.

I’m just suggesting it here because I’m no grand strategist and I can’t claim to understand what ramifications that may have. It seems to make a bit sense to me though: when you sit at home planning an army list, you also plan how you intend to use the list.

Thoughts?
Patrick

User avatar
USChris
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:41 am

Re: More Missions

Post by USChris » Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:46 pm

We had our MW Escalation Tournament today and tried out using the More Missions Matrix but with the TO rolling a die for all tables and not allowing repeated numbers through the day. I ended up rolling a 2, 3 and a 4. This resulted in 5 of the 12 players playing the same mission twice. 4 of the 5 were Counterattack and 1 was No Retreat. Here is the Breakdown of Missions used:
Counterattack 6 Games
No Retreat 4 Games
Bridgehead 2 Games
Contact 2 Games
Dust Up 2 Games
Encounter 2 Games
So I don't think this method was any worse for repeat missions but, depending on the die rolls, could lead to fewer repeats. As Keith pointed out in an earlier post, getting everyone through the initial Army and Terrain Talk and Mission Stance Selection before the roll did slow things down a little.

It might be worth trying picking out the numbers specifically before the event as then you can spread the numbers.
Chris Fretts
Able Kompanie
Indianapolis, IN

ultracommander
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:51 pm

Re: More Missions

Post by ultracommander » Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:20 am

Banure wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 pm
Have any of you considered making players assign attack/maneuver/defend to their army list before the tournament starts? For example, if you plan a list that you want to run aggressively you’d give it an Attack rating, if your list is better suited to defend, assign it defend, etc. This rating would then stick with the list throughout the tournament. It would be a bit similar to the always attacks/defends rating of yore, but then combined with the matrix.

I’m just suggesting it here because I’m no grand strategist and I can’t claim to understand what ramifications that may have. It seems to make a bit sense to me though: when you sit at home planning an army list, you also plan how you intend to use the list.

Thoughts?
Patrick
The problem here is that I may want to change my stance depending on the opponent. As a Mech Infantry force, I may want to attack an infantry list but a defend stance might be better versus tanks. Or, I might want to choose Defend to force the Fortified list into a mobile battle........
Keith Gilmour
Minneapolis MN

carlito
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:46 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: More Missions

Post by carlito » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:12 pm

USChris; Is this how it would work; The TO picks the mission. Then the 2 players use your suggested formula to determine the attacker/defender. Right? Would there not still be a real possibility that a Tank Company would have to defend in say a No Retreat Mission? If the Company Commander wanted to avoid that situation he could pick Attack or Maneuver and avoid the mission all together. Right?
In order to avoid the dreaded FA mission the TO could let everyone know in advance that the FA mission is not to be played. Simply roll the die for another mission.
Would this be a solution?

Carl

Underground Warren
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:07 am

Re: More Missions

Post by Underground Warren » Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:43 pm

I’m wondering if the descriptions of deficiencies with Battle Plans haven’t been specific enough so that the suggested solutions aren’t hitting the mark.

Am I correct that the issues are too many meeting engagements and same mission twice? Seems another minor concern would be scoring disparity because some scenarios might tend to yield closer scores or more draws.

Any other generally accepted concerns?

Post Reply