We had 12 players:
Soviets
Aaron
Joe B.
Joe C.
John L.
John M.
Chris W.
Germans
Josh K.
Wyn R.
Stewart B.
Jim V.
David P.
John M.
Some of our players traveled a good distance to play, but we're hoping to revive our Flames of War nights. Flames of War is our one miniature game that hasn't taken off since the move. As you can see by the photos, there are plenty of people playing and our facilities are up for the task.
Technically not a tournament, but certainly an event. This was a multi-player battle (or megabattle, in GW-ese). I define a multiplayer battle as a more social event than a regular day of games.
ReplyDeleteWe used a custom designed scenario - with a few rough spots to work out before we pull it out again - consider this a first playtest of the scenario and scenario special rules.
Some things I like about a multiplayer game:
*More social
*Your list can be more focused - it doesn't have to include some of everything
*Teamwork is a positive thing
*You have an audience to cheer when you do something brilliant, commiserate when your well laid plans fall through, advise you not to do stupid or rash things, and mock you (in a kindly way) when you try them anyway and then fail
*You see how other people choose to play your same faction
*You see a wider diversity of units hitting the table
*Larger tables require different things of an army - like longer ranged artillery, and transport to redeploy units
*new operational as well as tactical level challenges and decisions
*I think I mentioned the social aspect, but will mention it again, as this is a game where you interact with many people who are teammates or opponents, rather than only with one opponent at a time
*If I'm hauling a metric butt-load of terrain to the store, I want to see it all on a big, beautiful table
But, that's just me.
Technically not a tournament, but certainly an event. This was a multi-player battle (or megabattle, in GW-ese). I define a multiplayer battle as a more social event than a regular day of games.
ReplyDeleteWe used a custom designed scenario - with a few rough spots to work out before we pull it out again - consider this a first playtest of the scenario and scenario special rules.
Some things I like about a multiplayer game:
*More social
*Your list can be more focused - it doesn't have to include some of everything
*Teamwork is a positive thing
*You have an audience to cheer when you do something brilliant, commiserate when your well laid plans fall through, advise you not to do stupid or rash things, and mock you (in a kindly way) when you try them anyway and then fail
*You see how other people choose to play your same faction
*You see a wider diversity of units hitting the table
*Larger tables require different things of an army - like longer ranged artillery, and transport to redeploy units
*new operational as well as tactical level challenges and decisions
*I think I mentioned the social aspect, but will mention it again, as this is a game where you interact with many people who are teammates or opponents, rather than only with one opponent at a time
*If I'm hauling a metric butt-load of terrain to the store, I want to see it all on a big, beautiful table
But, that's just me.