Little Wars Tourney

[Karvon]

The last 2-3 months I have been playing a lot of tiny battles, using very narrow maps and very small (600 pt) armies. The games play pretty fast given the smaller unit count and reminds me quite a bit of DBA. I've had pretty positive feedback from my opponents thus far and am thinking of organizing a tournament based on these parameters if there is enough interest. If I get at least four people, I'll set it up.

Here's an overview of how it'll be run.

1. Number of matches will be contingent on the number of people who sign up.

4-6 two matches vs each player - 6-10 altogether.
7-13 one match vs each player for 6-12
14-26 Divide into two divisions sorted by DL rankings one match each for 6-12
27-39 Divide into three divisions sorted by DL rankings one match each for 8-12.
40-52 Divide into four divisions sorted by DL rankings one match each for 9-12.

2. Players should submit three armies plus allies if desired. Assignment will be based on DL rankings, from lowest to highest. Non-DL ranked players will be assigned on first come, first served basis; who ever signs up earlier has priority of those who sign up later.

3. All matches will be on very narrow maps and with very small armies (600 pts).

4. Battlefields will be potluck by default, but each player may request one reroll of battlefield per match. If both agree, an additional reroll can be done. IF MUTUALLY AGREED, players may select the terrain type. For example, two horse armies might agree to meet on steppe.

5. Tourney will run a minimum of 8 weeks with additional weeks added for battles over 8 to a maximum of 12.

6. Scoring will place a heavy emphasis on winning and inflicting losses. 4 pts for breaking the enemy army. +3 pts if inflcting 60%+, +2 pts if inflicting 40-59%, +1 pt if inflictinng 20-39%.

7. In regards to other details, we will follow the rules and guidelines posted for Digital League play.

8. We can accept one player per season who doesn't own all the DLCs. All others must have all DLCs to join. Such a player will need to have his matches created by his opponents.

9. The default battle type is OPEN BATTLE. If both players MUTUALLY AGREE, any of the other battle types can be played instead.

10. Tournament will start up after the current DL season finishes.

If you have any questions or comments on this, please post in this thread.

If you wish to join please post below.

The list so far... 12

1. Karvon
2. DanZanzibar
3. iandavidsmith
4. Challenge1
5. TomoeGozen
6. SnuggleBunnies
7. snooky51
8. Blagrot
9. NikiforosFokas
10. phoyle3290
11. Darkwater247 DLC rookie
12. Aetius39

[Karvon]

My picks

1. Arab Conquest 638 AD
2. Germanic Horse Tribes 260 BC with Dacian allies
3. Jewish 64 BC with Parthian Allies

[DanZanzibar]

I’d play. My only suggestion is that a player winning with less than 60% should get full points. I mean you only win with less than 60 if you really thump someone.

1. Arab Conquest 638
2. Bosporan 11 with Roman Allies
3. Frankish 600

[Karvon]

I’d play. My only suggestion is that a player winning with less than 60% should get full points. I mean you only win with less than 60 if you really thump someone.

Picks will follow.

If the enemy army breaks, that's a win for a base of 4 points. In addition you would score points for how much of the enemy was destroyed ranging from 1-3 pts.

So for example if you got a 40-15 win, you would score 4+2 = 6 pts. Your opponent would score 0.
If you had a 60-57 win, you would score 4+3 = 7 pts and your opponent would score 2.
If you had a 40-25 draw, you would score 2 pts and your opponent would score 1.

Karvon the Little

[DanZanzibar]

I’d play. My only suggestion is that a player winning with less than 60% should get full points. I mean you only win with less than 60 if you really thump someone.

Picks will follow.

If the enemy army breaks, that's a win for a base of 4 points. In addition you would score points for how much of the enemy was destroyed ranging from 1-3 pts.

So for example if you got a 40-15 win, you would score 4+2 = 6 pts. Your opponent would score 0.
If you had a 60-57 win, you would score 4+3 = 7 pts and your opponent would score 2.
If you had a 40-25 draw, you would score 2 pts and your opponent would score 1.

Karvon the Little

My only thought is that a 40-15 win is “better” than a 60-57 win but the player who barley won is ahead in the standings. I like the point breakdown you have for the losing or drawing sides but I think every winner should get 7. Otherwise it’s in my best interest when up 35-15 to let my opponent catch up a bit before closing the game out at 60%. You’re in charge and I’ll play either way but I think it’s a good minor tweak that helps achieve what you’re going for.

[iandavidsmith]

I would be interested as well

1.Indo – Greek 75 BC -10 AD with Kushan Allies
2.Dailami 928-1055 with Armenian allies
3.Macedonia 328 – 321 BC

Ian

[Challenge1]

Always up for a tourney!

1. Dailami 928-1055 with Armenian allies
2. Carthaginian (HinI) 216-203 with Samnite allies
3. Roman 105-25BC with Galatian allies

[TomoeGozen]

Count me in please

1) Vikings(Ireland) 900 -1049 AD with Irish 900 - 1049 AD allies
2) Greek 227-146 BC with Roman 280-220 BC allies
3) Palmyran 258-273 AD

[kronenblatt]

I’d play. My only suggestion is that a player winning with less than 60% should get full points. I mean you only win with less than 60 if you really thump someone.

Picks will follow.

If the enemy army breaks, that's a win for a base of 4 points. In addition you would score points for how much of the enemy was destroyed ranging from 1-3 pts.

So for example if you got a 40-15 win, you would score 4+2 = 6 pts. Your opponent would score 0.
If you had a 60-57 win, you would score 4+3 = 7 pts and your opponent would score 2.
If you had a 40-25 draw, you would score 2 pts and your opponent would score 1.

Karvon the Little

My only thought is that a 40-15 win is “better” than a 60-57 win but the player who barley won is ahead in the standings. I like the point breakdown you have for the losing or drawing sides but I think every winner should get 7. Otherwise it’s in my best interest when up 35-15 to let my opponent catch up a bit before closing the game out at 60%. You’re in charge and I’ll play either way but I think it’s a good minor tweak that helps achieve what you’re going for.

How about something like this then:

Scoring will place a heavy emphasis on winning and inflicting losses.
4 pts for breaking the enemy army, plus 1 pt if
loss difference is 25%+.
+3 pts if inflicting 60%+.
+2 pts if inflicting 40-59%.
+1 pt if inflicting 20-39%.

69-57 would result in 7-2 score as before, whereas 40-15 in 7-0. And 60-35 in 8-1...!

[DanZanzibar]

Well that a still doesn’t address the player with the strongest possible win - 40-0 - being behind in the standings to someone who won a weaker victory.

But I really don’t want this to take over Karvon’s thread and become some general discussion on how the rules may be set up...

[Karvon]

Thanks everyone for you feedback on scoring, but I'm going to run this season with what I first envisioned and see how it works out compared to the CT seasons I've run. I'll review the scoring at the end of the season and see how folks feel about how it worked out.

Regards,

Karvon the little

[SnuggleBunnies]

Count me in, these should be nice and quick to play.

Edit - armies chosen, order of priority to follow

1) Byzantine 551-578 with Arab (Bedouin) allies
2) Indian (Hindu North) 600-1049
3) Khorasanian 821-1003 with Dailami allies

[kronenblatt]

Well that a still doesn’t address the player with the strongest possible win - 40-0 - being behind in the standings to someone who won a weaker victory.

But I really don’t want this to take over Karvon’s thread and become some general discussion on how the rules may be set up...

The player will not fall behind since 40-0 loss yields 7-0 score => Maximum score differential. I just wanted to point that out, but not really wanting to hijack Karvon's thread. (Sorry )

[snooky51]

I'll join

1. Byzantine 988-1041 AD
2. Sassanid Persian 477 AD w/ Hun (Sabir) 463-558 AD allies
3. Thracian (Roman client) 50 BC - 46 AD w/ Roman 24 BC-196 AD allies

[Blagrot]

I'm up for some tiny games, not really played any yet.

British 600-1030 AD with Viking 900-1049 AD Allies
Alan 651-1049 AD
Carthagian 235-146 BC With Spanish (Iberian) 300-10 BC Allies

[NikiforosFokas]

I am in.
edit:
1) Byzantine 551-578
2)Ghaznavid 962-1187
3) Armenian 885-1045 AD.

[phoyle3290]

I will join if there are still spots.

1. Ptolemaic 166-56 BC
2. Carthaginian, Hannibal in Italy, 216-203 BC with Bruttian or Lucanian allies
3. Byzantine 551-578 AD

[Darkwater247]

I would be interested in this, However i am lacking one of the DLC so would have to be 'that' player?

If im able to join I will post my army picks

Cheers

*EDIT*
Finally have picked my little armies
1)Roman 425-492 with Alans
2)German 933-1049
3)Sassanid Persians 591-628 with Arab (bedouin)

Thank you again

[Karvon]

I would be interested in this, However i am lacking one of the DLC so would have to be 'that' player?

If im able to join I will post my army picks

Cheers

Sure, entry will likely be open for a couple more weeks.

Karvon the Little

[Aetius39]

Would love to join if a spot is still available!

1. Spartan 680-461 BC with Greek allies
2. Byzantine 551-578 AD
3. Viking 790-899 AD with Frankish allies

Aetius