
Originally Posted by
TogakureOjonin
If the first two games are played on the same map, with both players having to attack and defend on it, then I think the maps used could be of a wide variety. The tiebreaker should be played on the fairest map possible however. In the tournaments I've seen, tiebreakers are played on the Ironing Board (IB, which is completely flat). Maybe a small set of maps could be identified, and the players allowed to choose (consesus required) for the first two battles. Or, you could assign different maps to the different tiers.
My opinion: if 1.02 is used, the 4 max rule and no ashi rules should be used. Armies made up solely of Superashi and musks will dominate otherwise and, imo, ruin the gameplay. Ninja and Kensai are costly and not particularly effective (they don't really unbalance the battles), so I don't think you need to limit them, other than the 4 max rule.
The problem with ashigaru: they are very cheap, and cheap to upgrade. An H9w3a3 ashi kicks serious butt on any other unit in a 10K army, and they shouldn't (unrealistic, etc.). Even one Superashi would be a problem, I think.
Again my opinion: good standard maps for 1v1 are IB, Totomi, Azukizaka, Nagashima, and 4th Kawanakajima (as long as both have to attack one game; 4th is slanted in favor of defense for 1v1 because of the small central hill on the defense side). Yamato is a very odd map, and fun to play because the "normal" army compositions don't work that well there. There are some nice maps in the mappacks, but many do not have them and it would add a requirement to competing that might cause complications, possibly whittling away at an already small pool of interested players.
Things to consider. Based on prior experiences, I think it would be wise to have a concrete structure and set of rules before proceeding.
Bookmarks