Potential Interest for a Warfare Tournament?

[Mickd 0]

Hey all,

im just gauging the interest for a Warfare Tournament. At present there are a few PvP style tournaments such as Charlie Foxtrot but none that I am aware of which cater for the very large (it would appear) Warfare fraternity. It wouldnt be a ladder or league, but a 2 large teams comprised of individuals and/ or squads in a overarching chain of command. This kind of set up has worked very well in say Charlie Foxtrot & IC-ArmA in the past. The battles themselves would take place on a given day, for example a saturday and last for a fixed period of time. Over the course of say 8 weeks (usually called a campaign or tour) the two sides would battle it out over the towns on a given island. The one who has the most towns at the end of the campaign would win. There would obviously have to be tweaks to resources, money, available assets and everything to ensure the game play is sustainable, however I believe there is very large potential in this area.

This is a very rough outline of a concept but before we invest any real resources in it, it would be nice to gauge interest? Any comments or suggestions would also be welcome.

[beagle23 16]

I eat drink and breathe Warfare so I'd really be interested in this kind of thing, but I'm Australian so I don't know how that affects you.

If you're nowhere near me, ping would be terrible and my opinion won't even come into question!

[droogs 1]

Hi,

How are you looking at setting up the tournament? Would you have each player commanding a roled squad of AI (ie - 3 x players as 8 man inf sections , 1 x player as a 3 tank squad, 1x 6x M119 arty etc) or have the players take the roles within a couple of squads and vehs and have the overall Cdr direct these units as well as look after the usual upgrades and base building and decoys?

[Mickd 0]

Hi,

How are you looking at setting up the tournament? Would you have each player commanding a roled squad of AI (ie - 3 x players as 8 man inf sections , 1 x player as a 3 tank squad, 1x 6x M119 arty etc) or have the players take the roles within a couple of squads and vehs and have the overall Cdr direct these units as well as look after the usual upgrades and base building and decoys?

Yes along those lines. Say its 16v16, thus you have 16 human players commanding squads of 11 (thus 12 in total including themselves)

Army Command

Commander - Human & 11 AI (artillery & support)

1st Battalion

Squad 1- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 2- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 3- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 4- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 5- Human & AI Armor Platoon

2nd Battalion

Squad 1- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 2- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 3- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 4- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 5- Human & AI Armor Platoon

3rd Battalion

Squad 1- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 2- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 3- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 4- Human & 11 AI infantry

Squad 5- Human & AI Armor Platoon

This is a rough framework that i came up with off the top of my head but you can see that every human player controls a full AI squad of some type or description. Thus this is a huge battle. There would be no resistance or occupation forces. It would be up to the commander to decide which towns are to be defended and attacked. Inotherwords, it would not be a run out and catch what towns you can, each army would be too organised for that unlike in public games. Removing resistance and occupation forces eases pressure on the server, which increases server FPS. Thus it is highly likely that you could infact have more human controlled squads perhaps pushing it up to 20+ per side. This is highly probable as any tests we have conducted, server FPS is around 40 with no ai controlled ai. As a result there is room for expansion, especially if your redline the server like most default Warfare servers.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Mickd