From IBWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Looks interesting, I only think another name should be taken to avoid confusion with the other type of wargame which *here* and I assume *there* are much older.

A few possibilities: Battlegame, Flagtaking, Competitive Warfare, Paintwar, Warpaint, Championship Maneouvres, Pugnelude (from latin Pugna and Ludus) and I'm sure others can come up with others. --Marc Pasquin 17:52, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

Might be. By the usage of the word "Wargame" *here*, you mean the board games? Abdul-aziz 02:59, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
That and military practice (I often forget my plural in english).--Marc Pasquin 09:14, 10 June 2006 (PDT)

The australasian provinces would play separatly (the commonwealth is a loose association similarly to the FK). Aothearoa, with the maori's warrior traditions would probably be one of the great team. If east-asia include the pacific too, fiji and samoa could also have won.

Whether the provinces play as a single team or as separate teams does not depend on how loose the federation is usually (for example, UK is not a very loose federation in the real world, but England, Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland has separate national teams in the sports, while for example Serbia and Montenegro (when it was still a single country) was a very loose confederation, but their sports teams were united). I guess it depends more on the cultural differences between the provinces (e.g. most Scots prefers separate teams than one United Kingdom team). As I understand, there are not many differences between different provinces of Australia, so perhaps there would be Australian and Aoteoran teams (and some others maybe representing various islands that are part of Australasia). According to my suggestion, Federated Kingdoms would play as separate teams, Scandinavian Realm would play as a single team, Republic of the Two Crowns would play as separate teams (but until some time, maybe 1975 or so, there would have been a single RTC team), Castille and its New Grenada territory would play as separate teams. Not sure about Russia and Turkestan but those would probably have single teams, same for the Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Ethiopia (although Somali athletes would probably not participate in the Ethiopian teams since Somalia declared independence). Abdul-aziz 11:24, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
Unlike Australia *here*, the mainland provinces are all ruled by different laws depending on their respective motherlands and except for a few treaties (trade and defence strategy) have little in common. If the FK play separatly, their would be little reason for the australian to be united.
Incidently, Germany would also have a hard time playing togheter considering their political as well as ethnic differences. --Marc Pasquin 11:51, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
There are two "8" cycles. Seth 6:09, 11 June 2006

I will correct the cycle numbers.

In the real world it is common that the federations and confederations (even such loose ones as was Serbia and Montenegro for example) play as a single national team in all the sports. The only examples I can think of where the mainland (that is, not colonies and other far away dependancies) of some country plays as separate teams are the United Kingdom and maybe the People's Republic of China (China/Hong Kong); also Israel/Palestine but as the Palestinian team represents only the West Bank and Gaza Strip which are not officially incorporated into Israel this is a kind of different situation. Of course, it might be so that in IB this is different and the national teams are more likely to be regional teams actually with the exception of small non-federated states - I bet however there was no decition about it yet. As for the wargame, given its traditions and culture, it is more likely however that the countries would have united national teams - especially in the case of for example Germany and Ethiopia - after the Second Great War the wargame was a kind of the only way to achieve "revenge" for the lost war for the people of those countries and therefore they stood united, and the tradition continues (I am not sure however how German football team plays for example - united or are there separate teams, but that is another discussion). Similarly for the Australasia probably. It might be so that the Federated Kingdoms would play as a single team as well - I've just made it separate teams based on the practice of UK *here*, but, of course, this can be changed. Generally, if the country has a single foreign policy and/or a single army (single military history), it would probably have a single wargame (which will probably be renamed to battlegame if there won't be other suggestions) national team, although there might be some exceptions (especially if different parts of the same nation are in different continents), but those would be exceptions rather than rule. Abdul-aziz 05:43, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

If its based on separate forces, both the FK and Australasia would have separate teams for their constituent (3 for FK, 5+ for australasia).--Marc Pasquin 18:04, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
And how about the foreign policy? It seems to me that the Federated Kingdoms and Australasia took part in the Second Great War for example as single units, similarly as the Holy Roman Empire. Abdul-aziz 15:58, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
The best comparison I could make with *here* is the link that united the UK and its dominions (post statute of westminster)during WW2. Although the FK appear sometime to be like the UK, they are no more united then the European Union. In the end, while it might seem like they tend to do everything together, its only because as of yet, they had no reason not to.--Marc Pasquin 18:59, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
Up until 1988, the CSDS would have sent a single, unified team. After 1988, the CSDS did not compete anymore, nor did the successor states (being too busy with real battles) until very recently; Dalmatia, Bulgaria and Croatia have all started competitions again, and the stated goal of the Dalmatian federation is nothing short of winning the next European and World championships. Dalmatinac
Ok. Thank you for adding the information regarding the battlegame in the Balkan states. Abdul-aziz 16:01, 19 July 2006 (PDT)

My problem about australasia having a single team still stand. Unlike the NAL, they don't even have a unified armed forced (just a NATO type coordination effort). Add to that the language barrier and just the lack of of any good reason to play together. --Marc Pasquin 19:34, 20 July 2006 (PDT)

I agree with you, Marc, for the little I know about Australasia, they're very disunified. They're like the colonies *here* were before the REvolutionary war. BoArthur 19:52, 20 July 2006 (PDT)
In my opinion the reason behind sending a single team would have been that Australasia made a single side in the Second Great War (Great Oriental War) and the battlegame started after this war; later on it would have been tradition. However, as other people has different opinion, I have changed the article. Out of 4 previous Australasian titles one will be Aotearoan and 3 will be of New South Cambria. How about Great Corridor Territory by the way? Would it have its own team? Abdul-aziz 01:06, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
Regarding making a single side, so did the FK in regard to europe. It was however a question of coordonating resources and joint operation, not a fully integrated armed forces. While its fine to have New South Cambria being a constant winner, there is nothing preventing giving a championship to one of the other province.
As to the Great Corridor territory, it is actualy composed of hundreds of smaller entities (some aborigenese other european) so a unified team is even less likely.--Marc Pasquin 08:18, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
Aotearoa has won one champions title (East Asian champions of the 5th cycle), so it is not just the New South Cambria. Abdul-aziz 08:30, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
I meant in the spot you had allocated to "australasia" (i.e. "other province beside Aotearoa").
I see. That spot was also allocated to Australasia once however, just that I have changed it from "Australasia" to "Aotearoa" earlier than I did change "Australasia" to "New South Cambria" elsewhere. Abdul-aziz 06:00, 2 August 2006 (PDT)


2 Metres 10 cm? Firstly, most people say 210 cm, and secondly, why not an IB measure? How about 7p? Or 1ps 2p?

You can edit it if you know IB measures well and you know what 210 cm would equal. Abdul-aziz 03:07, 2 August 2006 (PDT)

World Championship

shouldn't the world champion also be one of the regional champion for a given year ? --Marc Pasquin 04:38, 2 August 2006 (PDT)

I am sorry, I don't understand very well whaqt you mean here, but if you ask why the world champions are not always the regional champions in that cycle, it is simple - 32 teams take part in the world championship, not only the regional champions. The ammount of teams each region sends to the world championship changes over the time based on the strenght of various regions. So, for example, it may be so that 7 East Asian, 7 European, 5 African, 5 West Asian, 4 North American and 4 South American teams participate in the World Championship (the teams which won 1st-7th, 1st-5th or 1st-4th places in the regional championships) and not necessarily the winner of regional championship wins the world championship; one or two years separates those two events (depending on which region the team is from). Abdul-aziz 06:00, 2 August 2006 (PDT)
Thanks, that answer my question. I thought the world championship was played between the regional champion. --Marc Pasquin 17:49, 2 August 2006 (PDT)

A few questions

Is a point awarded for "killing" everyone on the opposite team? Am I correct in assuming that anyone "killed" in one round comes back for the next?

If you "kill" an opposing player in a "fight", but you yourself survive, are you not disqualified? If so, it would seem that it would be a rather logical tactic for strong players Nik 10:04, 4 November 2006 (PST)

Indeed everyone who is "killed" can play in the next round, however, as there are 16 players starting each round and usually more players in each team, some players might be changed before each round depending on tactical changes, maybe injuries, a wish to let some players rest, etc.
Fighting is usually far from logical - the opponents has weapons, so if you for example punch an opponent and he shoots you, you will be killed (and disqualified too), while he will continue to play. It is as well possible to shoot from farther than to kick/punch. And, in case a person is not "killed" in that round, the disqualification will be applied when the round ends. Of course, causing more serious injuries will mean longer terms of disqualification, the shortest possible term being "for the rest of this match". So, similarly to other sports, if fighting does happens, it is usually triggered by other reasons than tactics.
"Killing" everyone of the opposing team equals a succesful goal (i.e. the round is considered to be won by the team who achieves that) and this is called "liquidation" (see the "glossary" section of the article; I see now that I counted the points for NAL-Louisianne game somewhat wrong and this is why you have asked probably; I will correct this). The successful goal, is, however, usually easier to achieve and is more frequent as:
  • Everything depends on pure chance (for example, who will be the first to press trigger) way more when you attempt to fight against opponents to achieve liquidation, tactics matters less, and with the one second rule in place if one person gets in front of the opponent it is quite likely that they will "kill" each other. And liquidation is anyways hard to achieve in 3 minutes and 30 seconds as it is easy for the opponents to hide in the field.
  • The defending team has no intention to fight *all* the members of the opposing team in that way risking that the opposing team will "kill" most of the defending team that way making achieving successful goal a trivial thing to do. The goal of the defense is instead to obstruct achieving successful goal (and, even better, to capture the flag, usually done by "killing" the flagman and his guardians if there are any), and the more "living" players there are in defending team, the easier it is to do.
  • If the defending team ends up to be grossly outnumbered normally the remaining players will try to hide and attempt an ambush against the flagman or the command room of their own base if the flag is already there (notice that who has the flag at the opponent's command room at the end of the round wins the round, not who puts it there. Therefore it is tehoretically possible even for one remaining "alive" defense player to run into its own command room where flag had already been put, when, for example, only 10 seconds remains until the end of the round, "kill" the opponents in that room (e.g. use a grenade) and remove the flag from there, that way ending the round in draw and preventing opponents from taking a point. This is not very likely to happen if a single player is left against many, but still, this is what players usually attempt to do in such situations. There are rules preventing many people from being at a single room or players staying at the same room perpetually, that way it is impossible to get all the team to stay in the opponent's command room for example when the flag is put there, a broader defense is needed.
  • If the offending team ends up grossly outnumbered, the remaining players will do their best not to get "killed", hide, so that the defending team would not capture the flag and achieve a successful goal. In some situations, where a team desperately needs to win the round and has nothing to loose if the round is lost, this is not the case however. Abdul-aziz 10:39, 4 November 2006 (PST)