runyan99 wrote:You've also got to standardize the optional settings for naval boxes, attrition, delayed commit, etc. across all games.
You should also specify a version number, and then it would probably be best not to update while the tournament is in progress, so the playing field would be level throughout.
Against what seems like my better judgement, or perhaps the better angels of my nature, I guess I'll play.
runyan99 wrote:You've also got to standardize the optional settings for naval boxes, attrition, delayed commit, etc. across all games.
You should also specify a version number, and then it would probably be best not to update while the tournament is in progress, so the playing field would be level throughout.
Against what seems like my better judgement, or perhaps the better angels of my nature, I guess I'll play.
Coffee Sergeant wrote:Also, when we get to the full campaign, foreign intervention. In my current game, with me playing as Union, my opponent got extremely lucky and four straight cotton embargos worked for him, while my total blockades backfired. FI score is at 93 in mid-1862. It would seem a bit gamey for the outcome to depend on such random factor.
josh4bs wrote:Just not sure if you want me to play just yet. I just purchased the game and it seems to be what I was looking for. I am new to this. I have played some of the older WWII turn-based strategy games from back in the early to mid-90s, but have been out of the loop since then.
I am currently deployed in support of the efforts in Afghaniland as a contractor, and would love to have something take up some of the time that I have here.
I understand if you guys would rather me wait a while before jumping in, but I espouse to the notion that you only get better by playing better opponents. Granted, I might be an easy win for whoever is pitted against me, but hopefully I can prove to be competitive, hopefully.
I'll check back to see the response...Until then, I will be playing the campaigns and learning my way around better in hopes of being prepared for the onslaught.
Thx,
Josh
Daxil wrote:It doesn't matter. Either way is fine, but let us know.
andatiep wrote:Salut les braves !
Before you left to mount on the front lines, i was thinking that maybe a tournament should involve only 8 persons (with 16, you can anyway run two tournaments), so that at the last game, all the loosers can participate to the last big campaign game by sharing the map and the tasks...
You can balance the two last teams thanks to the results of the previous turnament games.
That way all the tournament members are involved till the end ...and the monomaniaque tournament's spirit of erasing the weakest to be the last one let place for a more collective struggle .
I can't join you because i'm not able to follow the rythm of 1 turn a day (can't do more than 1 turn a week...) and i don't want to slow you.
I wish you anyway a good game.
Hope you will all come back from the fields ompom:
Return to “1st AACW PBEM Tournament (2008/2009)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests