I can think of a few problems I am afraid:
We would need gentlemen's agreement also that in a game that is clearly going to be won, the winner proceeds directly to securing the territories needed for victory, without detouring to mop up the last few units. Also that he secures 300% as soon as possible without taking that extra turn or two to kill off a few more pieces.
Also if you are certain to lose a game but can't surrender, why recruit? All you are doing is putting more cannon fodder on the table to be destroyed.
The problem is, if you have a below average set-up as Green amongst similiarly matched players on Anubis or Noble Rust you are going to lose no matter how well you play. It cannot be right in a tournament to play to cause maximum damage in unit terms but to lose as quickly as possible - this is not the way that MA should be played but the player that does so will progress under the rules. The skill is in playing as well as possible to try and reverse the disadvantage and to try and get back onto even terms, if you come close but fail you should be rewarded under the rules not penalised for having played on.
For this reason, I suggest that the total number of turns (i.e. in a pair of matches that is drawn, the winner is the player that achieved the win in the fewer number of turns) is used becase:
1. If an attacker proceeds cautiously in a game that he will inevitably win he will lose a split tie if his opponent plays better, more aggressively and achieves the victory earlier in the other game.
2. If a player has a poor start position, by careful play he may be able to prolong the game as long as possible and is incentivised to hold existing territory, conquer new territories right to the end and defend desperately to prevent the attacker reaching 300%. These are all the true objectives of MA, the number of units killed is not.
3. It will create exciting games with risk taking and winning close battles rewarded instead of games where you take a bit longer to build up an overwhelming force before you attack. The end of games where both sides are close to winning could be very exciting - particularly if the replays are continuously available on the web-site. If spectators are witnessing a closely run race they may keep coming back to see the action, if all they see is two games being won heavily by opposing players then there is little interest but to wait to see who happens to have done more damage at the end.
Finally, I suggest that we play the semi-finals as two games on Wasserland since going first has the smallest advantage on that map.
So my preferences would be:
(i) Play two games on Wasserland with the least turns rule
(ii) Play two games on Wasserland with the existing rules, surrendering is allowed (but with the gentlemen's agreement that you will not do so unless there is no realistic prospect of your winning)
(iii) Play two games on Noble Rust and two on Anubis with the least turns rules (total of the two games won compared for each player)
(iv) Play two games on Noble Rust and two on Anubis with the existing rules , surrendering is allowed (but with the gentlemen's agreement that you will not do so unless there is no realistic prospect of your winning)
I think Dave (MortonHQ) was a bit surprised that I surrendered as Green on Anubis after only three turns and thought that perhaps it was for tactical reasons, in fact I had spent a number of hours thinking about the position and given how poor my starting position was and the fact that he had invaded a small and medium SA of mine on his first turn, I had absolutely no prospect of winning. He had just resigned the other game on Anubis and given that he was so short of time and we were holding up the tournament, it seemed like the right thing to do not to make him play through a game he was clearly going to win. In any case I was fairly confident that I was going to win both on Noble Rust
!
Mike