1 vs 1 Tournament

Great idea, hope it happens

sending stuff from city to city will then not be allowed during the length of the tournament, if one does send stuff (and ultimately cheats) the res will be intercepted by the opposing player.
Which, in my opinion, will lvl out the attempt of cheating.

CranK wrote: 5) While you are in the tournament you can not recive trades wich support your towns with resources. They will return home.

A good way of solving this problem will be to allow players setting up a blockade at eachothers cities to prevent them from receiving resources.

HonoredMule wrote: If you just want sport, why not try something a little more skill-based?  Make every entry specify how many troops he's willing to commit, and a mediator pairs him up with the person whose entry matches in score (or specify a total attack+defense score and disallow the use of greater troop quantities during the match--players still get to choose the balance of attack+defense).24 hours before the match starts, specify a tile roughly half-way between the two contestants and let them know that is their target.  No troops may arrive until match start.  At exactly 24 hours after match start, the mediator's scout will arrive on the square.  Whichever side holds the square at that point wins.  Empty square is a draw.Contestants are forced to be evenly matched in strength, but have a variety of strategies on how they apply the strength (get there first and hold, clear in strength at last minute, periodic arrival of balanced occupations, etc.)  Like in real battle, one must commit to a plan before seeing which path the enemy will choose.  Contestants could be required to publish the composition of their commitments though, giving each other a chance to guess at what they'll be encountering with regard to timing.Such a mechanism means winning contestants might actually still have troops to participate in the next tier, too.

The whole sending 2k troops to one square idea seems to have no strategy whatsoever. It will be based more on luck than actual skill. Some armies may be archery based while the other would be cavalry based, while another would be balanced all the way through. Which means a mountain or forest tile would pretty much be the reason why a player wins. Also there commander or the lvls of each commander they sent, would play a huge difference in the result. A player could not send troops and send their assassins instead to the square...

I also do not like the concept a player can only fight against a player within 12 hours from you idea. Perhaps this can work in a tournament that starts in a region and the finalist of each region will then fight against each other at a certain square.

In terms of publishing commitments? Do you mean that the opponent would know exactly the troops they will be facing before they go to war with them?

I feel it would require much more skill to take down walls like Crank suggested or destroy a city like I suggested.

If the community as a whole will not be in favor of taking a city at all. I would be more in favor of taking down walls for a player to win. Which would mean no catapults and only rams.

HM, if you feel each player can only use a certain amount of troops and commanders, before a battle starts, the players would have to give their troops totals in detail to the mediator. Or perhaps each opponent can also know the troops totals in detail so they would know if there was cheating involved.

I think your idea of the tournament HM, would cater more for the care bear player. However, at least the rams being used would require more strategy involved.

Lionz

Yes, thats also a nice idea HM. Having both players accept the number of troops that they are able to use. But I can also see this option work in my idea of leveling down a city wall. You can choose to defend your own or attack the other players wall. It needs alot more strategy and planning and it doesn't mean ''the biggest player wins''.